All of the hundreds of threads with Believers vs. Non-Believers…
The most commited believers, I think, know a personal connection that is almost completely barred from explanation to unbelievers.
How does one explain those close, personal, unique connections to God that to unbelivers are nothing more than “delusions”?
I guess believers will always have to ‘give way’ to the current paradigm of “If you can’t PROVE it, it doesn’t exist.”
Heh.
Things like…
Love.
Courage.
Loyalty.
Faith.
Altruism.
Selflesness.
Is there scientifc “evidence” for any of these things?
And yet… they exist. (Despite the materialistic, reductionist, belief that all of these things are, finally, not only “self-serving” but entierly the manisfestation of chemical processes.)
Well, if all we are is chemical reactions…why do all of the intellectuals think that ANY government or ANY philosophy or ANY moral code or ANY economic system matters?
Let us all just “roll with the flow” in whatever circumstance we find ourselves in.
“LIFE” itself is just a short thing - and we should all take every advantage to get all we can.
In other words, they are deluding themselves. Living in an ego driven fantasy about how enlightened they are and how they have a special pipeline to Truth.
By calling them delusions, of course.
That is far too generous to religion. Religion hasn’t simply not been proven; it has no evidence for it at all. And a long history of being wrong. And of contradicting itself. And of violating known laws of physics.
Certainly. Brain scans. Behavioral studies.
Because we say it matters. Because what matters is determined by us chemical reactions, and nothing else.
And calling us “just chemical reactions” is rather like calling Earth “just a rock”.
Well, it is kinda just a rock. Hurtling through cold and empty space, gradually gaining entropy as it encircles a nuclear explosion which itself is slowly burning towards extinction. Pretty soon, all of the solar system’s heat will burn out, all life will be extinguished, and all the particles of matter that make up our being will dissociate and freeze at absolute zero. Faced with this fate, is it any wonder that some people make up some delusion about a magical man in the sky who will save us? What does it matter, anyway? Because, in the end, we are all fucked.
Sigh. Why do my fellow Christians still see SDMB as a place to try to “prove” Christianity to the intellectual atheists here? I must say, you guys have a lot of patience for these people, you really do. I’m not an athiest (or, some probably say, intellectual ) and these get me riled up to Pit level.
Is there a name I can call myself that says that I believe in Jesus as my personal saviour without the tremendous, tremendous baggage that “Christian” carries with it? (Because I’m sure if I tell others I’m Christian, they’ll have an image of all the Christians that have made my religion infamous. Including OP.)
Where the hell does this useless and confusing mischaracterisation of cognitive science come from? Chemical processes, for crying out loud - what, like adding a base to an acid to get a salt?
The human brain is like a biological computer in some ways (and unlike computers in others). It would be much less confusing to speak of computational processes instead of chemicals. Memory, for example, has useful computational analogies. And different “moralities” can evolve based on a memory of past co-operation/defection: one who usually co-operates might be labelled ‘loyal’, ‘altruistic’ or ‘selfless’, while one who often betrays or freeloads may be labelled ‘disloyal’, ‘mercenary’ and ‘a selfish arsehole’.
Hell, you don’t even need brain scans and the like to get evidence for these things. A fireman runs into a burning building to rescue a baby. That’s courage. Someone donates a kidney to save a dying family member. That’s altruism and selflessness. What’s so mysterious about any of those?
While the OP contains a couple of strawman arguments, I do agree there’s really no such thing as total altruism. (Also, altruism and selflessness is redundant.) And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. You do get something out of helping others - a good feeling, if nothing else.
What’s to explain? You believe in something incredible based on easily-misinterpreted subjective experiences, many of which are purely cognitive. That’s pretty simple and we already understand it.
You clearly think this is some kind of gotcha. It isn’t.
These things are evidenced by behaviors that signify them, and are largely or entirely defined by those behaviors. Those behaviors are, largely, exellent evidence for the existence of these things or things like them (though wether altruism is real depends on how you define the term).
God, on the other hand, has no evidence supporting its existence. The behavior of the religious is excellent evidence of the existence of religion, but nothing is observed which is even passably decent evidence for god.
Presumably by accident, you have asked an interesting question. Why are people moral?
People (including religious people) are moral because they seek a positive outcome for themselves. Does this sound like basic selfishness? It isn’t. Selfishness is pretty shortsighted, almost by definition. Good moral codes are built upon a recognition that one has to continue to live and co-exist with the people around them, and thus that it’s better for everyone (including themselves) if society is a pleasant place and people generally get along. Inevitably, if a person recognizes that their actions effect not only themselves and the person which whom they are acting, but also the opinions of everyone else around as well, they will attempt to behave in a “good” moral way.
Note that this can be skewed by amoral and evil “moralities”, which can exist if societal rules are being mandated by an impersonal or short-sighted source, like for example a religious code. Such codes can include biases and predjudices that define antisocial acts as “moral”. And if such codes are pervasive in the society it can cause other people to act in an antisocial way to one aspect of society to seek positive reactions from their morally corrupted peers.
You know, if even one of these people with a close, personal connection to God comes out of their chat with something beyond what can be found in the self-help section of the local bookstore, it would help. How about if P = NP. The winners of the next week’s worth of races at Belmont would be cool also, if something that could be explained by time travel. But no, it is “level each other” this and “don’t love each other that way” that.
And while you’re at it, get a clue about what research psychologists do.
To be fair, though, people were talking to God thousands of years before self-help sections in bookstores. I guess one could call [insert religious text here] the original self-help book.
Why do people still talk to God when there’s now self-help sections in bookstores? Well, that’s what The Thread Topic That Positively Will Not Die and its various responses are about.
) and these get me riled up to Pit level.