Benefit to believing in a non-God?

[tdn]

I originally posted this to another message board, but thought I might get some additional insight here.

Hypothesis: Even if there is no actual god, there is still a benefit to believing.

Forget about all of the social benefits and liabilities of believing -- church socials, Stalinist Russia, community stabilty, Talibanesque oppression -- from a purely personal standpoint, there is still a benefit.

A few points in support of this (I am well aware of the many many arguments against):

-There has been shown some evidence that prayer has benefit. It is good for the central nervous system. (Meditation has the same result.)

-We create God in our own image -- the mere act of wishing makes it so. (Admittedly this is pretty weak.)

-As a species, we have an inborn need to believe. To deny this need is like denying our need to grieve over lost loved ones, or to occasionally laugh, or to breathe.

-Another view -- there is a benefit to believing in Santa Claus. Even though we "know" that such a person does not exist, it does our hearts good to suspend our disbelief every December. And to tell a small child that Santa does not exist is not so much truthful as it is cruel.

Your thoughts?

[Jonathan Chance]

I dunno...

I've never had the 'belief' gene. It always struck me that espousing a belief in something that I felt didn't exist (or rather that there is no concrete evidence for existing) would by hypocrisy of the highest order. Right up there with believing the world is flat or some such.

So whatever the (dubious) potential health benefits are (and I'd like some evidence there) to prayer and such I think I value my own core self-respect more. And that means not being a hypocrite.

[Faldage]

Originally Posted by tdn

As a species, we have an inborn need to believe. To deny this need is like denying our need to grieve over lost loved ones, or to occasionally laugh, or to breathe.

Your thoughts?

As a youth I spent much time agonizing over the fact that I didn't, or couldn't, believe. I came to accept it. Some can, some need to believe. Not all of us do. I can laugh. I can grieve. I cannot believe.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

I've never had the 'belief' gene.

OK, on the flip side, is there anything to be gained (or lost) from pounding "the truth" in to those that do have the belief gene?

So whatever the (dubious) potential health benefits are (and I'd like some evidence there) to prayer and such

I can't cite any particular study, nor can I even remember the book where I read this, but it was a very popular book in the late 70s. It sort of brought the idea of meditation out of the mystical realm of Asia and into the practical world of Mr. and Mrs. Middle America. The idea is that stress increases risk of heart disease and stroke, usually by keeping the parasympathetic nervous system in high gear. Meditation helps by invoking the sympathetic nervous system (I might have the two mixed up -- sorry), reducing the harmful effects of stress. And not just during the course of meditation, but throughout the day.

Supposedly, prayer has the exact same effect.

That's the best I can do for a cite, but I can give you an amusing anecdote: I tried TM for a while. Perhaps a coincidence, but around that time people started asking me questions like "Did you start jogging?", "Did you get taller?", and "Did you finally quit that stressful job?"

[blowero]

"Believing in a non-God"? Is that like not believing in not not-God?

Seriously, though. We say "I don't own a car". We don't say "I own a non-car". Did you have any reason for stating a negative as a positive, other than to try to characterize it as something it's not?

And to answer your question, I do not have the ability to choose what I believe. If I find a thing to be true, I believe it. If I don't find it to be true, I don't believe it. It isn't a conscious choice. I can't will myself to believe in God any more than I can will myself to believe that 2+2=5.

[Faldage]

Originally Posted by tdn

OK, on the flip side, is there anything to be gained (or lost) from pounding "the truth" in to those that do have the belief gene?

I can't speak for others, but mostly I'm just fighting back at those who would attempt to force their beliefs on me*. I once heard a believer complain that other philosophies weren't treated with the disrespect given to Christianity. My answer is that I've never been accosted in a parking lot and asked if I've accepted Immanuel Kant as my personal Lord and Savior.

*OK, it doesn't always look like it on these boards. Y'all're just lucky, I guess.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by blowero

"Believing in a non-God"? Is that like not believing in not not-God?

Seriously, though. We say "I don't own a car". We don't say "I own a non-car". Did you have any reason for stating a negative as a positive, other than to try to characterize it as something it's not?

Yeah, well, you get my point. If you can think of a better thread title, I'm all eyes.

And to answer your question, I do not have the ability to choose what I believe. If I find a thing to be true, I believe it. If I don't find it to be true, I don't believe it. It isn't a conscious choice. I can't will myself to believe in God any more than I can will myself to believe that 2+2=5.

Sure you can. Do you ever find yourself, in some small and insignificant way, believing in Santa Claus on Dec. 24? Have you ever watched a movie and believed, if only for a moment, that the characters were real people? Not in your rational mind, of course -- but somewhere in the deep recesses of your primitive lizard brain? I'll bet you have.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Faldage

I can't speak for others, but mostly I'm just fighting back at those who would attempt to force their beliefs on me*. I once heard a believer complain that other philosophies weren't treated with the disrespect given to Christianity. My answer is that I've never been accosted in a parking lot and asked if I've accepted Immanuel Kant as my personal Lord and Savior.

*OK, it doesn't always look like it on these boards. Y'all're just lucky, I guess.

Fair enough, but you failed to address the question.

[Zagadka]

-There has been shown some evidence that prayer has benefit. It is good for the central nervous system. (Meditation has the same result.)

I don't know about physical effects, but I feel in a better and more emotionally stable place.

-We create God in our own image -- the mere act of wishing makes it so. (Admittedly this is pretty weak.)

For the record, I suppose I technically do believe in a non-God. I've never held the view that god is a sentient creature. I don't think anyone creates god of their own image, unless they have a poor understanding and a bad imagination. We may personify aspects of god, but that is largely for the sake of our tiny minds and restricted vocabulary that can't express the concept well enough.

-As a species, we have an inborn need to believe. To deny this need is like denying our need to grieve over lost loved ones, or to occasionally laugh, or to breathe.

I don't think this is true. I think most people believe because they feel the effect of god on their lives.

If you want to take a new-age "non-God," you are more than welcome to. I personally have felt and seen that my and others' beliefs have been of great benefit in times of trouble. Whether this exchange of "self-dellusion" for security is worth it is entirely up to the person.

I don't believe that you can get a religious experience out of just "deciding" to be religious. It is something you have to find. Otherwise, you can practice meditation and even do something wacky like talk to spirits, and knock yourself out, but you're getting into the grey area of what religion is.

Originally Posted by Faldage

I can't speak for others, but mostly I'm just fighting back at those who would attempt to force their beliefs on me.

Then why do so many atheists take it upon themselves to post in purely religious threads and devise intricate proofs that god can't exist, frequently resorting to calling anyone who dares to have a belief structure an insane sheep? I've seen far more people attacking religion than atheism on these boards. Is it some kind of revenge? Do you just hate religion? What is the difference between someone discussing religion with you to convert you to their thinking, than someone discussing politics to convert you to their thinking?

I once heard a believer complain that other philosophies weren't treated with the disrespect given to Christianity. My answer is that I've never been accosted in a parking lot and asked if I've accepted Immanuel Kant as my personal Lord and Savior.

You've never taken college philosophy, then. ;-)

[Eve]

Originally Posted by tdn

Do you ever find yourself, in some small and insignificant way, believing in Santa Claus on Dec. 24? Have you ever watched a movie and believed, if only for a moment, that the characters were real people? Not in your rational mind, of course -- but somewhere in the deep recesses of your primitive lizard brain? I'll bet you have.

Soooo, being religious = primitive lizard brain?

(By the way, I once did own a non-car)

[rjung]

One thing that's worth keeping in mind is the cost/benefits analysis of the OP -- specifically, "Do the benefits of believing in (a) god outweigh the drawbacks of believing?"

I mean, sure, believing in (a) god might help in recovery and provide emotional comfort during crisis, but is that worth it given that religious belief can also be used to promote ignorance, intolerance, or unquestioned following to authority figures?

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Faldage

I can't speak for others, but mostly I'm just fighting back at those who would attempt to force their beliefs on me*. I once heard a believer complain that other philosophies weren't treated with the disrespect given to Christianity. My answer is that I've never been accosted in a parking lot and asked if I've accepted Immanuel Kant as my personal Lord and Savior.

*OK, it doesn't always look like it on these boards. Y'all're just lucky, I guess.

Lovely.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by rjung

I mean, sure, believing in (a) god might help in recovery and provide emotional comfort during crisis, but is that worth it given that religious belief can also be used to promote ignorance, intolerance, or unquestioned following to authority figures?

That's an unfair way of putting it. Believing in ANYTHING can lead you down that road - politics, religion, science (as demonstrated admirably by Science Girl).

You make that a case against religion? FFS, you just described Slashdotters to the letter... not to mention yourself, with ignorant and intolerant generalizations about religion in general. I'll give you a brownie point for not unquestioningly following authority figures, though.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Eve

Soooo, being religious = primitive lizard brain?

No! I didn't say that at all! What I meant was that some of us hold wonky beliefs in the remote backwoods of our brains, while theists hold those thoughts front and center!

Thanks, I'll show myself out.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by tdn

Yeah, well, you get my point. If you can think of a better thread title, I'm all eyes.

Sure, how about "Are there benefits to believing in God?" That's actually the question you are asking. The way you asked it betrays an agenda.

Sure you can. Do you ever find yourself, in some small and insignificant way, believing in Santa Claus on Dec. 24? Have you ever watched a movie and believed, if only for a moment, that the characters were real people? Not in your rational mind, of course -- but somewhere in the deep recesses of your primitive lizard brain? I'll bet you have.

You are confusing believing with imagining. However, I did believe in Santa Claus (as well as the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny) when I was a small child, but now know that I was wrong. I was able to believe those things because I didn't know they were fictitious. Now that I know they are, I am incapable of believing in them.

[Thudlow Boink]

This question's pretty close to the one addressed in another recent GD thread that asks whether it's worse to believe in a non-existent God or to deny the existence of a God who does exist.

Talking about the benefits to believing (or disbelieving) in God is way too vague and general a question, unless you specify what God, or what you believe about God. For instance, it matters whether you're talking about a God who takes an active role in the world or a God who, after creating the universe, just sits back and lets it go. It matters whether you believe in a God who loves you or in a God who's out to get you. It matters whether you believe in a God who loves everybody or in a God who only loves members of certain groups, or people who do certain things.

[Faldage]

Originally Posted by tdn

failed to address the question.

I failed to address the question because I can't really say that I have an answer. While I agree that there are probably benefits on a psychological level to believing, I couldn't say if they are there for someone who is only pretending to believe for the purpose of receiving those benefits. I think that there have been some good conjectures here about the trade-off between the benefits of believing and the costs of hypocrisy, but, if there's no benefit to pretending to believe then it's all cost and no benefit. Certainly there are benefits to being a part of a caring community, but that can happen without religion; it just may be easier to find it with religion as the uniting factor.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by blowero

Sure, how about "Are there benefits to believing in God?" That's actually the question you are asking. The way you asked it betrays an agenda.

Not an agenda, but I wanted to target it to the right people. A better (but clumsier) way might be "Are there benefits for atheists to pretend to believe in God?", or "Are there benefits to believing in Santa Claus?"

You are confusing believing with imagining.[/quote]

Very well. Are there benefits to imagining that you believe etc.?

But to cut stright to my agenda, here is the real real question -- Does God actually exist? Does it matter either way?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

One thing I always enjoy about public prayers is that when everyone else bows their heads, we atheists can glance quietly around the room and become casually acquainted.

Originally Posted by tdn

(snip)

"Are there benefits for atheists to pretend to believe in God?"

(snip)

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

That's an unfair way of putting it. Believing in ANYTHING can lead you down that road - politics, religion, science (as demonstrated admirably by Science Girl).

Science Girl's "science" has already been thoroughly debunked by others, so she's hardly a credible source, I'd wager. And yes, you can make similar arguments for cost/benefit analysis for belief in other things as well.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

You make that a case against religion?

No, but you inferred it to be one.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by rjung

No, but you inferred it to be one.

In a religious thread, talking about religion, you state that all religious people are sheep following an authoritarian regime, and you say it isn't a statement against religion?

You keep telling yourself that.

[ihsus]

Originally Posted by tdn

A better (but clumsier) way might be "Are there benefits for atheists to pretend to believe in God?", or "Are there benefits to believing in Santa Claus?"

What kind of benefits are you talking about?
Benefits to praying to God you don't believe in, or benefits to claiming to be a believer so that you can blend with other believers, or the society consisted of believers?

I don't really know about believing in Santa Clause because I've never been a believer, but I can think of benefits for parents to make their kids believe in Santa Clause.

[Eve]

Well, you certainly couldn't get elected to public office in the U.S. as an admitted atheist.

[beajerry]

From Micheal Shermer's book How We Believe,
we are pattern-seeking animals and these patterns help us make decisions that better our survival.
These patterns can be grouped into four categories:
1. Type 1 Error: believing a falsehood.
2. Type 2 Error: rejecting a truth.
3. Type 1 Hit: not believing a falsehood.
4. Type 2 Hit: believing a truth.

We've developed a Belief Engine which helps us seek patterns that reduce our errors in thinking, which increases our survival.

So a benefit of not believing in God would be not making Type 1 Errors (since there is no God), and thus taking personal responsibility for one's place in the world (for one's morals, decisions, acts, thoughts, etc.)

[F. U. Shakespeare]

There might be a few exceptions, Eve, with, say, a very popular and qualified candidate running in a very secular district. But the substance of your statement is very true. Heck, lots of mid-level management jobs will be more difficult for someone who makes their atheism known.

I'm baffled at how many religious people don't acknowledge the net PR benefit of declaring your religious faith in a majority-religious society. Such a view seems to confuse being religious -- which does indeed sometimes demand sacrifice -- with claiming to be religious.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by beajerry

So a benefit of not believing in God would be not making Type 1 Errors (since there is no God), and thus taking personal responsibility for one's place in the world (for one's morals, decisions, acts, thoughts, etc.)

How so? I'm not sure I see the connection.

If we are here "by accident"—if we are what we are and do what we do just because the universe happened to work out that way—where does that leave room for taking personal responsibility? I guess what I'm saying is that personal responsibility presupposes some sort of free will, and I find free will more compatible with theism than with naturalism.

(Plus, if there's no God, then whom are we responsible to?)

[beajerry]

Well, free will means just what it says. It's free from anything, even a god.
Thus, you're on your own in this world. We're not responsible to anything or anyone.
However, to prevent social chaos and to improve our chances of survival by formulating reliable bonds with others, we've developed morals and mores.
We're responsible to those. (Otherwise we'd be 'cast-out' of many a loop.)

We've developed an idea of God to help us (or scare us?) in following these morals.

But that idea of God is not needed for those with enough courage and strength to live truthfully on their own.

The idea of God is simply wasteful, in that you are contracting out your responsibility for yourself to a third party. And when things go wrong, many put the blame on said third party. Which is convenient, but in a way cowardly.

So free will is absolutely not theistic. It is it's opposite.

[Thudlow Boink]

beajerry, I suspect you and I are working at different levels or using different meanings of "free will." But that's not surprising; free will is a notoriously tricky thing to talk about. I don't want to debate that here, but I do want to mention a couple of things that occurred to me while pondering your words.

You claim that someone like yourself who does not believe in God is better—more courageous, stronger, more willing to take responsibility for himself—than someone who does believe in God. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many believers who think that believing in God makes them better people (i.e. better people than nonbelievers, or better people than they would be if they did not believe). Psychologists probably have a name for this: people use their deeply held beliefs to feel better about themselves, and it's not limited to religious beliefs. Liberals think that they are better people for their liberal beliefs, and conservatives think they're better people because of their conservative beliefs. So, one answer to the OP's question is that believing in God can make one think more highly of oneself—but then, so can disbelieving in God.

Observation number two: Let's grant your claim that disbelieving makes you a better person (more courageous, more responsible, etc.). I don't think this would be true of everybody, but it could well be true for some, yourself included. Well then, if God does exist, he would not want you to believe in him if you are actually better off disbelieving! It would be reasonable for him to hide himself from you, to grant you the benefits of not believing. In fact, some have posited that this is precisely what God does do: he hides himself from human beings to grant them freedom (to choose whether or not to believe) and maturity (from facing life on their own).

"Every religion which does not affirm that God is hidden is not true." -Blaise Pascal, quoted in Richard Elliott Friedman's excellent and relevant book The Disappearance of God.

[beajerry]

Well, this is where we'd probably have to jump off on the agree-to-disagree train.

Sure, I believe it is better to be fully responsible for your free will, but I do not discount that many use the symbol of a god to help them do so.
Those that use such a symbol/tool also recognize it as such. So they are able to transcend such a symbol in improving their responsibility to their free will.
They do not rely on a god as a literal thing (such as Fundies do).

Simply said, some use God (symbol) as a tool and discard it when the job is done, and that's cool. Some use God (literal) as a crutch and are disabled the rest of their lives, and that is, to me, ignorant and lazy.


And, I'd agree with you that people use their beliefs to boost their self-esteem. Those that actively question their beliefs to find truth break free of that trap.

As for your observation #2: it seems like a nice mind game, but a little to convoluted for me. More of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument perhaps?