Why do people believe in god?
- Thread starter LuckAse
- Start date
430 is one claimed example, not a definition. Also it is a false claim by the standard definitions of transcendence, which relate to transcending the limitation of the material world.
Post 412 was shown to be false in post 419 (Your unsupported claim is easily denied.) and implies that you may also have a very non-standard concept about what are the characteristic of “Instinct” – No instinct relates to the concept of reincarnation or spiritual after life – this ideas are TAUGHT by groups and organizations that hope to get very material rewards by collecting fees, / donations, etc. No taught concept is an instinct.
Still wait for your definition of “transcendent.”
I would agree we have this impulse to seek more out of life. The brain is also capable of amazing experiences. At the very least, the original religion of shamanism and it's connection to various plant intoxicants proves this.
I suggest that at the least for the sake of the discussion, you consider that humans are desiring material things for more than just for the sake of possessing material things; but that instead by desiring material things, humans try to gain spiritual benefits.
The spectrum on which the instinct for transcende operates is wide:
it ranges from trying to feel secure by buying a house to a belief in the afterlife.
As for various organizations collecting donations: life on earth costs and those organizations have expenses too (such as paying the rent, electricity etc.).
The money is needed and collected in order to keep the organization functional, not to "buy one's way into the afterlife."
Then school curricula need a drastic revision!
I agree with spidergoat's: "I would agree we have this impulse to seek more out of life." That "impulse" to get more out of LIFE is the instinct I called "I want more" and many call "greed." You agree that wanting more in life, more physical goods and more power, admiration, sense of security, etc. is an instinct. Where we differ is that you claim, with zero evidence, there is an instinct to seek God, or spiritual benefits that transcend these earthly benefits.
Fact that many things can be discussed as if they existed is not evidence that they exits. Unicorns have been discussed for centuries.
It is the history of man that he has believed in many things only because that is what the prior generation believed and taught him even though there was no supporting evidence. For example: “Sail too far from land and you will fall off the earth.” 5000 years ago, most believed that dozens of specialized gods existed, until the Jews consolidated all these gods into only one and for Christians reduced them to a "3 in 1" god.
Most of these earlier beliefs with zero supporting evidence have been dropped as man gained greater understanding of the world he lives in, but some old beliefs, (those with powerful self interested groups teaching these beliefs to children too young to critically think)*, about the existence of some non-worldly existence still are widely believed. As this activity collects a lot of money, there are many of these religious groups competing with each other and trying to spread their version of these beliefs in re-incarnation or after lives.
You however are not just “discussing” the possibility of some non-worldly existence, but claiming that not only is it real and even that it is an instinct in man:
For example there is an innate belief at birth that harm will come to you if falling thru space. Often called the “fear of falling” but elegantly demonstrated by Elisabeth Spellman, head of the psychology department 40 or so years go at Cornell. – Read about her “visual cliff” experiments. (Briefly: a large strong glass plate was on top of much smaller table. – No baby will crawl out beyond the edge of the small table, even though firm support beyond is provided by the glass sheet. BTW, this also demonstrates that even very young babies (many can crawl at one week)** are dominated by vision. Many other experiments with closed loop delayed TV showing where your hand were, what they were touching under a table so direct vision is prevented, etc. show you believe what you see, even if conflicted by your tactile senses. There is much more truth to “Seeing is believing.” than most suspect.
My point, which seems to have escaped you, is that: Nothing which must be taught is an instinct. Belief in cycles of re-incarnation or in one eternal after life is TAUGHT, - thus not an “instinct.” Greed (“I want more”) is not taught but is a true instinct.
-------------
* The Jesuits used to brag: “Give me a child until he is three, and I will give you a Catholic for life.”
** My father was a simple MD, and in his youth rode horseback up many valleys in W. Va. to deliver, at home, the babies of coal miners. Normally the new born was just laid on the bed while the woman’s needs were attended to. One, less than a minute old, baby nearly crawled off the bed before my father noticed! I was not there, but there is no reason to think my father lied about this.
Certainly for the sake of discussion one can consider this, just as one can consider there is advanced life on Mars. (About 100 years ago many including some of the scientists of the day who could observe their irrigation canals in their telescopes thought that to be true.) Or that "dark matter" Or "free will" , etc. exists.
Fact that many things can be discussed as if they existed is not evidence that they exits. Unicorns have been discussed for centuries.
It is the history of man that he has believed in many things only because that is what the prior generation believed and taught him even though there was no supporting evidence. For example: “Sail too far from land and you will fall off the earth.” 5000 years ago, most believed that dozens of specialized gods existed, until the Jews consolidated all these gods into only one and for Christians reduced them to a "3 in 1" god.
Most of these earlier beliefs with zero supporting evidence have been dropped as man gained greater understanding of the world he lives in, but some old beliefs, (those with powerful self interested groups teaching these beliefs to children too young to critically think)*, about the existence of some non-worldly existence still are widely believed. As this activity collects a lot of money, there are many of these religious groups competing with each other and trying to spread their version of these beliefs in re-incarnation or after lives.
You however are not just “discussing” the possibility of some non-worldly existence, but claiming that not only is it real and even that it is an instinct in man:
and now:
I explained that no believe which must be taught can be considered to be an instinct. Instincts are innate:
For example there is an innate belief at birth that harm will come to you if falling thru space. Often called the “fear of falling” but elegantly demonstrated by Elisabeth Spellman, head of the psychology department 40 or so years go at Cornell. – Read about her “visual cliff” experiments. (Briefly: a large strong glass plate was on top of much smaller table. – No baby will crawl out beyond the edge of the small table, even though firm support beyond is provided by the glass sheet. BTW, this also demonstrates that even very young babies (many can crawl at one week)** are dominated by vision. Many other experiments with closed loop delayed TV showing where your hand were, what they were touching under a table so direct vision is prevented, etc. show you believe what you see, even if conflicted by your tactile senses. There is much more truth to “Seeing is believing.” than most suspect.
So you would have not just various religions teaching the belief in an afterlife, but the schools too? Which version? (Cycles of re-incarnation or one eternal after life)?
My point, which seems to have escaped you, is that: Nothing which must be taught is an instinct. Belief in cycles of re-incarnation or in one eternal after life is TAUGHT, - thus not an “instinct.” Greed (“I want more”) is not taught but is a true instinct.
-------------
* The Jesuits used to brag: “Give me a child until he is three, and I will give you a Catholic for life.”
** My father was a simple MD, and in his youth rode horseback up many valleys in W. Va. to deliver, at home, the babies of coal miners. Normally the new born was just laid on the bed while the woman’s needs were attended to. One, less than a minute old, baby nearly crawled off the bed before my father noticed! I was not there, but there is no reason to think my father lied about this.
Last edited by a moderator:
?
You need to go back and check what it was that I really suggested, if I had indeed suggested anything at all.
First you said:
If that is so, then why do they teach us that we have a sex instict? Or a fight or flight instinct? And so on.
If sex is really an instinct, then, by your logic, there is no need to teach it at schools (and elsewhere). Yet they do teach it. Why?
Having sex is an instinct, and these internal instincts cannot be informed by the detailed extent of externals found by science, such as disease, social implications, and more. Instinct is not the whole ball game.
Because we need to know about our basic drives - Ignorance plus this instinct can get you in trouble (STDs or if female - pregnant.)
We don't teach it in school. You cannot teach it. It is innate, as all instincts are. - We teach about it so you know what is driving you and how that instinctive drive can get you in trouble, etc.
What makes you think that the instinct for transcendence is any different?
Your understanding of transcendence seems to be entrenched in old-school theism, thus giving you a very narrow perspective on transcendence, and viewing "material life" and "spiritual life" as two discrete, separate entities.
I think your view of transcendence is too narrow, this is why I suggested you consider a broader view, at least for the sake of discussion.
If you adopted that broader view of transcendence, you could see how it accomodates many readily observable phenomena - especially how people try to obtain transcendent, spiritual benefits when pursuing material things.
We have an instinct for "I want more." This plays out in a number of ways - from wanting more food, to wanting more fame, to wanting a happiness that is not limited by aging, illness and death.
These phenomena are on a spectrum, not discretely separate.
I have no idea how babies think, and whether they indeed interpret their behavior on glass tables with "harm will come to you if falling thru space."
Some adults certainly interpret it that way, but I do not see how it would be necessary that babies do too.
It demonstrates that?
Really? And you have statistical data to support that?
If you have unresolved issues with theists and you are trying to resolve them with me, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Yes I do not invent new meaning for well established terms - transcendence MEANS going beyond the material. Thus it is separated by definition from material wants, needs, instincts, etc.
I am not entrenched in "old-school theism" - I am entrenched in dictionary meanings and common usage.
Desiring to be re-incarnated on Earth after death is not an instinct - it is a desire stemming from instructions (teaching) primarily given in Eastern countries.
Desiring to live after death eternally (with God in heaven, etc) is not an instinct - it is a desire stemming from instructions primarily given in Western countries.
If these spiritual desires were instinct they would not depend upon which religion instructed you. - Instincts are universal. For example turning your head towards a sudden loud noise is an instinct.*
Wanting re-incarnation back on Earth while others want eternal life (not on Earth, but in heaven) does depend upon who taught you your spiritual beliefs - they are not innate as instincts are. They are taught beliefs and desires.
-------------
* Some might call that a "reflex" but I reserve that term for automatic behaviors that do not involve the brain. - Such as taping leg just below the knee. - This causes afferent neural impulses to go to the spinal cord and there stimulate efferent neural impulses to return to mussels controlling the lower leg. - There is no brain involvement. Precisely defined terms promote clear thought. You should try it. Then you would not be calling taught behaviors and beliefs "instincts."
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, I believe God created the world in 7 days. I have heard the story from Jesus Bible.
Does it involve the cortex of the brain? I'm not so familiar with the auditory system (which is byzantine relative to vision), but I think it's the inferior colliculi of the corpora quadrigemina?
If it's outside of the cortex, wouldn't it be reflex?
The pupillary reflex uses the brain. The retina could be considered "brain". The "brain" is sometimes considered an outgrowth of the optic nerve
That aside, I agree with your post. It's probably really difficult to have access to a brain that hasn't been wired to think about the concept of life after death. BUT, I thought SAM did some research on people in the Amazon that had an interesting culture in that regards? I think fear of death is reflexive. But, we have the ability to temper the amygdala's role over the influence of the frontal lobe. I'm sure religion is part of that feedback control system.
Does it involve the cortex of the brain? I'm not so familiar with the auditory (which is byzantine relative to vision), but I think it's the inferior collicul of the corpora quadrigemina? If it's outside of the cortex, wouldn't it be reflex?
The pupillary reflex uses the brain. The retina could be considered "brain". The "brain" is sometimes considered an outgrowth of the optic nerve
That aside, I agree with your post. It's probably really difficult to have access to a brain that hasn't been wired to think about the concept of life after death. BUT, I thought SAM did some research on people in the Amazon that had an interesting culture in that regards?
I think fear of death is reflexive but we do have the ability to temper the amygdala's control of the frontal lobe.
I only know a little bout the auditory system (much more about the visual system). One thing very related to turning head in the direction of loud sound is how we know from which direction sound comes. The inner ear does a frequency distribution to spatial distribution (different nerves activated- that's space -by different frequencies) This is sort of like a Fourier transform. The transformed signals from each ear split with about 40% (as I recall) going to the cortex on the other side of brain.Does it involve the cortex of the brain? ...
The pupillary reflex uses the brain. The retina could be considered "brain". The "brain" is sometimes considered an outgrowth of the optic nerve
I think fear of death is reflexive but we do have the ability to temper the amygdala's control of the frontal lobe.
Thus on each side of the brain there are (except for when sound source is equally distant for both ears -Straight head or straight behind) two copies of the same transformed data steam, but but one is slightly delayed wrt the other. The cortex processes this relative delay information to allow you to know the angular location of the sound source with quite good accuracy considering the phase shift / delay may be less than 0.01 seconds. This is all automatic and without any conscious access to the results - You consciously just know form where the sound came.
If the sound was sudden and loud, the unconsciously computed angular location is some now (not sure how) used to activate motor cortex to produce the head turning. I am not certain, but think this activating signal goes directly to the motor cortex - in contrast to a voluntary turning of the head, which has that neural motor cortex in some sense "driven" by the "pre-motor cortex.
I might note that the reason why you can usually tell if sound source is straight head (instead of straight behind) is that the shape of your outer ear makes different reflected copies of the sound waves and these have slightly different arrival times. Ears come with considerable variation in shape, but always the part on the back side is large compared to the front.
These internal (in the outer ear) "shaddowings" is how you usually can tell straight ahead sound from straight behind sound locations despite source being equally distant from both ears. The shape of the outer ear (and the sound reflections that makes) also allows you to know if the sound source is above or below you. Man cannot do as well with only two microphones, but can do better with three (or more).
I think I read long ago that if you cut the external ears off bat, it will starve to death. - External ear shape is very important, but seldom spoken about. The SPCA won't let that experiment be repeated now.
---------------
Yes the pupillary reflex uses the brain, so my distinction between reflex and instinct needs to be modified to recognize that reflexes are automatic responses to a brief external stimulus, many of which do not use the brain. The retina is brain tissue. It is a detached part of the brain that migrated to its post birth location, in the early pre birth stages of development, with the optical track and optical nerve keeping the retinal information available to the remainder of the brain - mainly the V1 area - Some information goes to the "superior collicuous" (not spelled correctly). Read about "blind sight."
In lower life forms, a greater fraction of the retinal data goes there, instead of to V1 (via the LNG). Cortically blind monkeys (Their V1 ablated) can often "see" (probably without conscious experience) yet pick up peanuts from the floor and eat them - no groping for then - just a direct reaching.
So, going back to religion, what are your thoughts?
Maybe consciousness is related to cortex <--> thalamus double checking, is THAT a reflex? The amygdala fires to the forebrain, causing "fear", is THAT a reflex?
I wonder, lets suppose fear of death exists somewhere in the forebrain. If the forebrain has a "religion" pathway wired into this pathway, it may be that a brain with a religion pathway reduces the effects of the amygdala, reducing fear, and freeing up time the brain can do something else that's useful to the survival of the organism?
To answer the OP: Freeing up useful* working time on a human mainframe
*NOTE: If there's too much religion, the working time is reduced. Such an individual may have a relatively low fear of death but will need to rely on a larger cohort for it's survival. See: Imam, Priest, Monk, etc...
Maybe consciousness is related to cortex <--> thalamus double checking, is THAT a reflex? The amygdala fires to the forebrain, causing "fear", is THAT a reflex?
I wonder, lets suppose fear of death exists somewhere in the forebrain. If the forebrain has a "religion" pathway wired into this pathway, it may be that a brain with a religion pathway reduces the effects of the amygdala, reducing fear, and freeing up time the brain can do something else that's useful to the survival of the organism?
To answer the OP: Freeing up useful* working time on a human mainframe
*NOTE: If there's too much religion, the working time is reduced. Such an individual may have a relatively low fear of death but will need to rely on a larger cohort for it's survival. See: Imam, Priest, Monk, etc...
Last edited:
I thought to be brain you had to be, by definition, encased in the cranium.
Retina is CNS, but, is it Brain?
I am an agnostic - Not much is known but there are many conflicting beliefs concerning post death events - most, if not all, must be wrong. I see no evidence for anything not decaying with the body. But as is often said: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," so I remain an agnostic.
As Chambers said "consciousness is the hard problem." I have a "crackpot" theory about perception, but none about consciousness, but I do suspect it too is generated in the parietal brain. The essence of my theory is that in parietal brain a Real Time Simulation, RTS, runs when we are awake or in dreaming state. The RTS is based on a slight forward in time projection of the sensory data. - This compensates for the neural delays. For example allows you to perceive where a fast moving ping-pong ball is now, not where it was several neural transmission and synaptic delays earlier. Occasionally, the world changes in unpredictable ways (e.g. hidden firecracker exploding) so the RTS is in error. That sudden drastic revision of the RTS, is reflected in the EEG signal p300, which is often called the "startle spike" (and known to be strongest over the parietal brain).
The parietal RTS is constantly self checking - sending its model of the world back to earlier points in the input sensory data streams, such as the thalamus , visual cortex, etc. which really make continuous difference analysis (between true sensory input signals and retro signals of the RTS model.) Few know it, but there are actually more retro neural fibers coming to V1 from parietal tissue than from the retina, via the LGN. Likewise there is huge set of retro fiber nerves from parietal brain to the thalamus. Why they should exist, what function they serve, etc. is total mystery to everyone accepting the standard theory but an essential need of my theory - When we are awake and acting on our perceptions, the RTS must be continuously checked against the incoming sensory data stream (and at as early a point in those input streams as is possible.) In the dream state, we do not act on our perceptions so this "checking with reality" is not needed, or done. Then "wild" impossible things can be perceived. My theory is consistent with dozens of other known facts which the standard theory of perception has no way to explain or even contradicts! - For example, in the dream state there are no sensory inputs for the perceptions to "emerge from." (Eyes are typically closed - yet you may perceive great visual danger, etc.)
Thus I am certain the standard theory of how perception is achieved is totally wrong. Perception does not "emerge" following many stages of neural computational transforms of the sensory input neural data streams. Each of these neural streams is "deconstructed" into separate aspects ("characteristics") which are further processed in well separated parts of the brain. There is zero evidence that these well separated computation result are ever re-joined in any part of the brain, yet perception is of a unified world - not a list of processed characteristics of the environment. The deconstruction into characteristics is done to permit this detail-by-detail checking. Much like pilot uses a detailed check list instead taking an integrated view of the plane and saying: "She looks OK to me."
Below is link discussing some of the multitude of known facts the RTS explains,* which the accepted theory cannot, and why the RTS evolved and allowed our smaller brained, physically weaker ancestors to rapidly kill off the Neanderthals who had no RTS, but perceived as the standard theory suggests. (I.e. they perceived thrown rocks and spears to be where they were a small fraction of a second earlier due to the neural processing delays.) I.e. in addition to many neurological and behavioral mysteries, my theory even explains the "Out of Africa" event, how we can play a fast game of ping-pong, etc. More on the RTS at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 This post does tell alot about the RTS, but is focused on how my theory may allow genuine free will to be consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry that deterministically control the firing of every nerve in the brain.
----------------
* I will here just mention two examples:
(1) Parietal strokes often produce "unilateral neglect" (Half the world ceases to exist for the victims, or is very poorly represented). That is an obvious expected result if what we perceive is the parietal constructed RTS, but not expected in the standard theory as none of the brain tissue processing the input sensory data stream has been adversely affected.
(2) Phantom limbs are very "real" to their victims - and should be if they are still part of the RTS but not actually existing, do not provide the normal input sensory streams for their perception to "emerge" from.
I suspect fear of death, if it exist in all, is just a generalization or component of fear of pain, fear of unpleasant events. The forebrain has some activities that can be considered to be contemplative of the various results real acts may have. I foreget who first described one of the more important survival benefits of consciousness as: “This contemplation of possible consequences of acts allows our hypotheses to die instead of us.” Most are aware that they will someday die, and that there may be many days of pain preceding death. Naturally there is fear of death. As there is nothing humans can do to prevent eventually dying, and religions do offer a denial mechanism for this unpleasant reality, they are popular. I understand “fear of death” and the popularity of a postulated escape / denial of death this way, not as some “fear of death” neural circuits in the forebrain sending “calming” signal to the amygdale.
Fear of death seems to be created by contemplation, not innate. Many years ago (pre-SPCA) the keeper of the dog pound ran out of funds to feed the dogs. After a few days of them not eating, he knew he had to kill them all. They liked him as only he feed them. He drove stakes in a uniformly spaced circle and tied with short rope one dog to each stake. Then took his position at the center of the circle each time before killing each dog – I.e. from the center of the circle he walked directly to the dog and smashed its head with a baseball bat, then returned to the center of the circle. Every hungry dog, even the last to die, was wagging its tail as he approached, - glad to see him coming! One cannot be sure what “thoughts” were in the head of a dog the second before its head was smashed, but certainly their behavior suggest “hope for some food” from its regular feeder and zero fear of death.
Last edited by a moderator: