Cognitive Science of Religion

[Agent Intellect]

i've recently picked up the book Religion Explained (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965), which has a lot to do with the cognitive science of religion. it seems to be a pretty non-bias'd book (it talks a lot more about religions besides just christianity then it does about the main religions) although it does have a little bit of an atheist leaning.

i'm not finished with the book yet, but it does raise some interesting points (not just about religion, but about superstition and the belief in the paranormal in general) about things like mental inferences and memetics.

the main thing it seems to be getting at (so far) is that the human brain is hardwired to believe in the paranormal, but that its also hard wired to believe in only certain types of paranormal. basically, our paranormal beliefs are generally humanistic but with abnormal traits.

for instance, people believe in ghosts, but they believe in ghosts as if they are human but with a few abnormal traits. in every culture, ghosts are people that perceive their environment the same way, they remember things that have already happened, and they think basically the same way people do. if someone were to tell you that there was a ghost that only remembers things that have yet to happen, or that the ghost only sees the here and now and immediately forgets everything that happens, you would probably dismiss it immediately.

(not really in the book, but something i've noticed) no matter how transendant or beyond human comprehension people seem to say God is, they still attribute human traits to him/her/it/them. God loves people, and he wants this or that for people, and God even cares enough to help (some) people. and why does God have an aversion to greed, or stealing, or killing? doesn't benevolence seem like a very human trait?

or if you take the more mainstream approach to God, why does he hate people? why would God supposedly (according to people like Jerry Falwell) hate homosexuals, or hate people of other religions, and why would God bless our troops but not somebody elses troops?

a big topic of cognitive science of religion seems to be: are humans wired to believe in religion? which to me, also raises the question that if we are wired for religion, wouldn't it be just as easy to say that God wired us that way? but then to that, if God supposedly wired us all the same way, why so many Gods?

some good links for people interested in the cognitive science of religion:

Lessons for Religious Education From Cognitive Science of Religion (http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=155290&source=r_health)
What Is Cognitive Science? (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/RelCogSci08.htm)
A Christians View on the Book "Religion Explained" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/papers/Edinburgh_Murphy_text.pdf) (to me, this .pdf sounds bias'd, as the author immediately says without explanation "this book only applies to other religions, not christianity!" but i added it here to keep myself from sounding biasd to atheism. its a good read, nonetheless)

[NoID10ts]

This sounds like a good read. I think the Christians will definitely say that we are created in God's image, therefore, it is us that reflects god (although it is a corrupted image) and not vice versa. But I like your question, "why so many gods, then?" I may have to pick this book up.

[Agent Intellect]

it is a good book (and i think christians or people of any theism can get something out of it). its obviously not going to answer all our questions and not everyone is going to completely agree with what its saying, but its a great tool for beginning to explore the question on why people believe, whether you believe we evolved a brain thats wired to believe or you believe that God wired us that way.

and, just to clarify (after re-reading my post) i don't think benevolence is a human trait, but a trait that humans would give to someone (like God).

[fullerene]

I could have sworn sometime about 4 or 5 weeks or so ago I went on a rant about people who imagine God as "us plus some powers." When I put details to the difference, pointing out one way he was metaphysically different, better, than us, the christians around kinda went "yeah... I can see that. It doesn't bother me," and everyone else was kind of disgusted by the idea.

I think it was actually the last time I've seen Dissident say anything in the threads I've paid attention to since...


I'm not sure I'm gonna look through those sites... precious short on time and lacking quite a bit of motivation, recently. The idea sounds like something I wouldn't really argue with, though.

[Agent Intellect]

i'm not questioning God's supposed "powers" (and i understand the argument that God doesn't know all, that he didn't wave a magic want to create existence, but that existence can only be what God wills it to be).

what i'm questioning is the human emotions attributed to God. if God is truly beyond human, completely beyond comprehension, then why does he still feel "love" for existence and "desire" for us to be closer to him? or, as i said, why the aversion to what humans think of as negative (lying, stealing etc).

i guess the question comes down to, who gave these attributes to who? did God give them to us because those are the attributes he seems to "posess" (and i put it in quotes because i know someone will think "God is beyond attributes and human concepts of attributes" which is why i bring up this point in the first place), or did humans give them to the God they imagine exists?

[fullerene]

hm.... what I meant got lost in translation, I think... but it doesn't matter, actually. I realized that the time I was thinking of wasn't anything different than what you were saying anyway--just a more roundabout way of coming from it.

[Agent Intellect]

fucking hell, i had a long reply written up about cognitive science and inferrences (not about God, really, but just cognitive science in general) and when i hit post reply, the forum crashed and i lost the whole thing.

shortened version (hopefully this actually goes through):

we all make inferences about things. if i said the word "elephant" you would immediately have a subconscious description of it: big ears, long trunk, mammal, grayish color, lives in africa/india, gives live birth.

we make expectations based on these inferences. you only need to see one elephant give live birth to know that they all do. its not a statistics thing, you only need to witness it once to have the expectation that they all do.

i think this sort of thinking, while convenient so that we don't have to consciously think of everything (which would slow down throught processes a hundred fold) also causes things like racism, sexism, homophobia and other hatred and distrust between people. without even trying, our brain groups up and categorizes people we perceive as "different" from us and creates those same types of expectations. "my sister acts like this, so that must mean all women act like this" and so forth.

[FusionKnight]

For instance, people believe in ghosts, but they believe in ghosts as if they are human but with a few abnormal traits. in every culture, ghosts are people that perceive their environment the same way, they remember things that have already happened, and they think basically the same way people do. if someone were to tell you that there was a ghost that only remembers things that have yet to happen, or that the ghost only sees the here and now and immediately forgets everything that happens, you would probably dismiss it immediately.

Yeah, I remember Decaf's post awhile back on the same subject. It's always seemed to me that "pop" Christianity is of the "god = human + powers" camp, whereas (what I call) "real" Christianity realizes that if God exists then he must be totally transcendent.

I think the Christians will definitely say that we are created in God's image, therefore, it is us that reflects god (although it is a corrupted image) and not vice versa.

If there is a God, and he is transcendent, but we are made in "the image" of God, or put another way, imagined into existence by the "Godness" of God, then it would make sense that some of God's infinite and transcendent qualities would be dehydrated and placed in us.

I guess it makes sense to me that it goes both ways. God put himself in us in a finite way. Then humans come along and try to infer the infinite from the finite, but we just don't have enough to do it justice.

[Agent Intellect]

so you would agree that God undergos human emotions (or more accurately, humans undergo the same types of emotions God does)? God loves people and desires us to be close to him and dislikes sin? i don't know, to me it seems like everyone has an image of God that they prefer, not of one that might actually exist. God always wants for us these things that the particular person wants of us (hence why jerry falwell thought God hated homosexuals and muslims think Allah hates western culture etc).

i guess my main question really is: did God create us in his image? or did humans create God in their image?

[NoID10ts]

i guess my main question really is: did God create us in his image? or did humans create God in their image?

I would add to this that if God did create us in his image, the revelation of himself to humanity is muddled at best. Why? What is the nature of this revelation? Why is one revelation to be preferred over another?

commence collective tail chasing once again! :D

[FusionKnight]

i guess my main question really is: did God create us in his image? or did humans create God in their image?

Certainly humans are constantly re-creating, interpreting, relating to, God in our own human image. This is really independent of whether he exists or not, though. In my world-view, he exists as transcendent, but we apply all our own human limitations (emotionally, psychologically, temporally, etc) to him.

[Fleur]

i don't think benevolence is a human trait, but a trait that humans would give to someone (like God).


If it`s not a human trait, then from where did they pulled it out? If the term of `benevolence` needs to be created, but humans don`t have it/ can`t observe it to other living forms, they can`t make it up, because it`s nonexistant.


i guess my main question really is: did God create us in his image? or did humans create God in their image?


Do we have any other avaible image?
Humans created God to be like them because they can`t imagine that it could be different - all the gods in all mythologies are more or less humanlike: it`s possible that their appereance isn`t clearly human (thought most times they`ve saved some elements of human body, even if it`s twisted), these gods still have same emotions as humans have, and the Christian God isn`t exception.

[Agent Intellect]

its interesting that humans have to make inferences that follow some sort of logic, even if its about illogical things. humans are the only animals known to decouple (as its called in the book i'm reading), which means to be able to think about something that isn't there as if it is there, or think about something that could or will happen instead of only reacting to current happenings in their environment, yet these things still follow some sort of logic.

much the way that an affect has to have a cause that makes sense. "if i lift weights today, the telephone will stop working". most people can read this and immediately see that it makes absolutely no sense. its much the same way for the supernatural. "if you do what God says, he will punish you" doesn't seem to make much sense, either.

so why does God seem to fit within our expectations, especially if we can't know the mind of God or what God is really like? why is it that humans, the only species that can think of what is not there as if it were, the only ones that believe there to be a God? why does the mind and the will of God seem to change in subtle ways as human culture changes? why is it so easy for people to believe some religions over others ("scientology, how absurd!")? why do people tend to believe in beliefs that fit their expectations of what a God or religion should be if God is so far transcendant to us? even though we say God is beyond logic and reason, he still seems to fit human reason in many ways (he wants us to be good and doesn't want us to be bad).

[sagewolf]

I guess that most humans want to believe that hey are the most perfect beings that God has created: and what could be more perfect than him? Therefore, we look like God. Simple.

As to the logic, I think the fact that God is illogical is the reason why he is not understood. Or rather, he follows divine logic, not human logic. We simply impose our own logic onto everything, and that includes our perception of God. That we have expectations of God does not necessarily mean he conforms to them.

The ghosts with differing perceptions of reality are actually cool ideas: I try to come up with ideas like that when I'm writing a story. Some people are more receptive to them than others; a lot of speculative fiction readers are very receptive to it. That's the purpose of sf anymore, really...

[EloquentBohemian]

so you would agree that God undergos human emotions (or more accurately, humans undergo the same types of emotions God does)? God loves people and desires us to be close to him and dislikes sin? i don't know, to me it seems like everyone has an image of God that they prefer, not of one that might actually exist. God always wants for us these things that the particular person wants of us (hence why jerry falwell thought God hated homosexuals and muslims think Allah hates western culture etc).

i guess my main question really is: did God create us in his image? or did humans create God in their image?
The latter: humans created God, or any gods for that matter, in their image. Attributes and follies of humans are thoughout myths in every culture. In Western cultures, the Greek myths are the ones most known. To read them is to read the emotions humans have, love, hatred, slander, vengance, compassion, etc.
Such are the myths of virtually every other known culture. Their deities exude both qualities and character flaws of humans.

In the Old Testament does not God show vengeance, a human trait?
""Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" (Romans 12:19)

Do not the phrases:
I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no god but Me...
Is there any god, then, but Me?
There is no other god; I know none. (Isaiah 46:6-8)or
I am God, there is no god but Me, so worship Me! (Quran, 20:14)bespeak of human pride and narcissism?

Deities and their accompanying mythologies are constructed and subsequently altered over the course of human history to reflect whatever the current environmental situation and cultural milieu a group of individuals were in. These are transformed or decimated by changes in environmental conditions, progessive civilization of the group, forced migrations or invasions by other groups, to name the most prevalent reasons.

Deities begin as explanations for natural phenomenon which are expanded on by members of a group which need transcendant authority to cohere the group into necessary action which will ensure the group's survival and enlargement. Stories (myths) are created around these deities which will express the deities transcendant powers and abilities to the group. The mythologies evolve into set body of stories from which principles are extracted.

Individuals are selected from the group to memorize and pass on this grouping of stories and their principles in order that the group maintains a reference plane to base actions on within the group and toward those outside the group, promoting the further cohesion and expansion of the group. These selected individuals become keepers of the myths and extract rituals from the myths which expound the stories and their accompanying principles. As the group grows in numbers, these individuals become priests and functionaries whose decisions become inviolable because they speak from the authority of the deities invented much before the lives of the current group.

So this sort of got away from me here, but as support for my initial statement.

[Agent Intellect]

do deities really start from explanations of natural phenomena? is it a requirement that deities supply explanation for how or why things happen? certainly a lot of things are attributed to them, but how do they really start? does someone see the world and think "what could have made all of this?" perhaps it is the human logic that theists often call into question that make us think that everything must have been created by something else? (and if so, then who created God? why does God not need a creator, but the universe does? why not simply apply the logic of God not requiring a creator to the universe?) does God follow rational rules (ie. the way physics work out so well mathematically instead of just a bunch of arbitrary rules put forth by God) or do people simply attribute these rational rules to the God they imagine exists?

[FusionKnight]

Do not the phrases:

Quote:
I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no god but Me...
Is there any god, then, but Me?
There is no other god; I know none. (Isaiah 46:6-8)

or

Quote:
I am God, there is no god but Me, so worship Me! (Quran, 20:14)

bespeak of human pride and narcissism?

Only if you assume they're not true. If they are true, then there's no pride or narcissism in stating fact.

[Gorgrim]

Well, the first one has sense. The other one doesn't mention anything other than wanting to be god!.


I like the first qoute, honestly. I'm my own god :) obviously, im not others god. that would be mean.

[EloquentBohemian]

do deities really start from explanations of natural phenomena?
Anthropologically speaking, and these are theories founded on anthropological and archeological research/studies, this would be the most logical explanations. A people whose environment is the Amazon forest will have spirits/deiities which reflect this environment and its non-human inhabitants. In these people's mythologies, there is a marked absence of sky-deities, instead their deities rest in the forest forms around them.
In peoples who inhabit environments of vast open spaces invariably have sky-deities of some variation, for they are more exposed to the environmental variables which they see initiating from clouds, the sun, and the night-time sky. Peoples whose environment is heavily forested rarely view the full scope of the sky and therefore have little to no reaction to it.
Nomadic peoples are more likely to have sky-deities which are more powerful than earth-based deities, in contrast to more powerful earth-based deities of settled agricultural peoples.

is it a requirement that deities supply explanation for how or why things happen?I don't think it is a requirement, per se, but it seems that they emerge from peoples attempting to grasp their environments so they can better survive within them.

certainly a lot of things are attributed to them, but how do they really start?That would be unknown as there is no physical eveidence to extrapolate any solid facts from. In truth, the areas of prehistoric anthropology are constructed on little archeological eveidence and much theorizing. The oldest known civilizations with any appreciable archeological evidence are dated to 5000 - 3000 B.C.E. (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley). Evidence from nomadic hunter/gatherer peoples is sketchy at best with oldest references to their 'beliefs' being cave paintings dating to approx. 32,000 years ago.
Monotheism is relatively new in comparison to forms of pantheism, with the first known reference being Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), an Egyptian pharoh who died approx. 1335 B.C.E.

does someone see the world and think "what could have made all of this?" perhaps it is the human logic that theists often call into question that make us think that everything must have been created by something else?I think it is human nature to be inquisitive. It is possible that in prehistory, questions were put forth in some fashion which equated to 'Why is this animal or plant here?'. Perhaps, because some predator was so powerful and stealthy and would hunt prehistoric people of a certain environment, that suprahuman properties were attributed to it and a need to appease this creature would emerge from that, such as offerings of game the humans killed.

From there, stories may have been built up over time to address two major themes, what to do to appease and avoid this creature and the embellishment of its powers. It is no stretch of our imaginations to assume that prehistoric imaginations would embellish and enlarge on the basic powers and prowess of any creature prehistoric people feared and/or were in awe of.

(and if so, then who created God?I think monotheism is a logical extention of pantheism. Is it not easier to worship and pay homage to one deity which contains all qualities rather than a plethora of deities which one would have to chose between depending on what divine assistance one requires?

why does God not need a creator, but the universe does? why not simply apply the logic of God not requiring a creator to the universe?)Precisely my thoughts. The logic of this is sound.

does God follow rational rules (ie. the way physics work out so well mathematically instead of just a bunch of arbitrary rules put forth by God) or do people simply attribute these rational rules to the God they imagine exists?I would say the latter. It is easier to become closer to a deity who has qualities which one can relate to than one who is aloof and beyond access.

[EloquentBohemian]

Well, the first one has sense. The other one doesn't mention anything other than wanting to be god!.
The quote form the Quran:

"I am God, there is no god but Me, so worship Me!" (Quran, 20:14)

...demands worship. Qualities of Ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism would be present in this. To me, there is a sense of 'or else' and/or 'I deserve it' inherent in the last demand.

If a deity is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., why would this deity require homage, or at minimum, acknowledgement, from its creation?

[EloquentBohemian]

Only if you assume they're not true. If they are true, then there's no pride or narcissism in stating fact.
This would be my assumption. Yet, even if they are true, why demand homage be paid? Why even reveal oneself? Why demand acknowledgement of one's existence from an obviously lower form of existence? Does this exude a human quality of insecurity or narcissism? Why does a deity need to be known?

[FusionKnight]

The quote form the Quran:

"I am God, there is no god but Me, so worship Me!" (Quran, 20:14)

...demands worship. Qualities of Ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism would be present in this. To me, there is a sense of 'or else' and/or 'I deserve it' inherent in the last demand.

If a deity is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., why would this deity require homage, or at minimum, acknowledgement, from its creation?

I have to disagree again. God demanding worship only displays "qualities of ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism" if he isn't really God. If he is God, then worship is the only relationship between man and God that makes sense and that truly acknowledges that God is, in fact, God.

Of course you can argue that God doesn't exist, and that the human construct of God shows "qualities of ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism". However, what I'm reading into your comments is that you find the idea of God being real distasteful and unlikely because you don't like those negative human traits having power over you.

It's a circular argument: "I don't like the idea of God being real because my image of God is a narcissistic egotist, even though the definition of those traits are dependent on them being applied to not-God."

[EloquentBohemian]

I have to disagree again. God demanding worship only displays "qualities of ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism" if he isn't really God.
I do not dismiss other qualities of a deity such as benevolence, mercy, etc., though statements such as I quoted from Scriptures can be defined as human qualities as the ones I suggested.

If he is God, then worship is the only relationship between man and God that makes sense and that truly acknowledges that God is, in fact, God.Why is direct conversation not an option? If a deity is omniscient and omnipotent, is it not possible for this deity to converse directly in terms and ways the deities' creations may understand without any 'go-between'?
Worship implies a separation on the basis of superiority which demands recognition from, and debasement of, the one being demanded to worship. These demands arrive with implications of punishments, as well.

For what reason(s) would an omnipotent being or deity require acknowledgement and debasement coupled with threats for non-adherence?

Of course you can argue that God doesn't exist, and that the human construct of God shows "qualities of ego, self-importance, superiority and narcissism". However, what I'm reading into your comments is that you find the idea of God being real distasteful and unlikely because you don't like those negative human traits having power over you.On the contrary, I do not find the idea of any deity, monotheistic or otherwise, distasteful, for that would require and aesthetic/emotional qualification from me, which I refrain from.
What I do question is the existence a deity, or deities, and the resulting demands of required acknowledgement of the deity's, or deities', existence.
I question an omniscient and omnipotent deity's possession of recognisable attributes which mirror human qualities.

It's a circular argument: "I don't like the idea of God being real because my image of God is a narcissistic egotist, even though the definition of those traits are dependent on them being applied to not-God."Not what I am stating.

[Agent Intellect]

I do not dismiss other qualities of a deity such as benevolence, mercy, etc., though statements such as I quoted from Scriptures can be defined as human qualities as the ones I suggested.

i agree. the argument from the theist standpoint tends to be that God is transcendent to us, he is so far superior that we can't even think of God as being "human + some powers" but when human emotions are attributed to God, does that not seem like he is being humanized?

Why is direct conversation not an option? If a deity is omniscient and omnipotent, is it not possible for this deity to converse directly in terms and ways the deities' creations may understand without any 'go-between'?
Worship implies a separation on the basis of superiority which demands recognition from, and debasement of, the one being demanded to worship. These demands arrive with implications of punishments, as well.

in an earlier debate, someone stated that God is so great, that if a sinful human were to be in his prescence, that the human would certainly be destroyed. that seems very limiting of someone supposedly "all powerful" that it could not even be in the presence of his creations.

the argument about punishment, from the theist standpoint, is that sin is its own punishment. that sinning is seperating oneself from God by our own will, so its not really God punishing us. but, to me, that raises the question of how "all powerful" God is that he has no control over his creations. an argument in earlier threads was about whether God has a plan or whether its free will, or whether God knows what you're going to choose to do or not. it seems like a legitimate paradox to me, but it kind of got swept under the rug.

For what reason(s) would an omnipotent being or deity require acknowledgement and debasement coupled with threats for non-adherence?
thats always been a question that stuck in my mind. if the universe is Gods creation, what purpose does it serve? entertainment? feed his own ego? fifth grade science project? just to see what happens? if God doesn't need us, why does he care if we believe in his existence or follow his rules?

On the contrary, I do not find the idea of any deity, monotheistic or otherwise, distasteful, for that would require and aesthetic/emotional qualification from me, which I refrain from.
What I do question is the existence a deity, or deities, and the resulting demands of required acknowledgement of the deity's, or deities', existence.
I question an omniscient and omnipotent deity's possession of recognisable attributes which mirror human qualities.

which kind of brings it back to the original question at hand: are we Gods creation, or is he ours? God, whether he exists or not, sure affects our lives, as decisions are made with "what would God (or Jesus, i guess) do?" in our minds, and our behaviors (holy wars, abortion, gay marriage etc) is affected by the belief in God.

maybe:

humans = the ants.
God = the swarm.

[wadlez]

I borrowed the book you are talking about from the library a few months ago, I had to return it before i finished it though.

"we all make inferences about things. if i said the word "elephant" you would immediately have a subconscious description of it: big ears, long trunk, mammal, grayish color, lives in africa/india, gives live birth.

we make expectations based on these inferences. you only need to see one elephant give live birth to know that they all do. its not a statistics thing, you only need to witness it once to have the expectation that they all do.

i think this sort of thinking, while convenient so that we don't have to consciously think of everything (which would slow down throught processes a hundred fold) also causes things like racism, sexism, homophobia and other hatred and distrust between people. without even trying, our brain groups up and categorizes people we perceive as "different" from us and creates those same types of expectations. "my sister acts like this, so that must mean all women act like this" and so forth."

Not saying this is not right, but I think If I read this before I read the book I could misunderstand what you said. (or what the book meant)
Here's my attempt at explaining inferences
To infer something, Is to assume information not directly provided by the information given, eg if you saw a picture of a cat mid air attacking a bird, you would infer that the cat jumped at the bird (instead of falling from the sky, or shot from a cannon). Inferences as reffered to in this book, are the information we infer with no conscious thought, eg you wouldnt consciously have to think that the cat jumped at the bird, you would just know that information without any time or effort at all. or another example, If you saw tree fall down, and a man with an axe standing next to it call out timber, you would infer with no conscious effort, that the man cut down that tree. Even more, with no concious effort, you would also be inferring that the man yelled timber, and not the tree.
Humans need to make the inferences constantly in order to be able to be able to think efficiently.
In this book the author goes onto explain that with religion, we have to make lots of inferences when we believe them. Like ghosts for example. There meant to be dead humans that are invisble etc, but theres so many questions this raises, like what do ghosts eat, do they hang with each other, where do they sleep, do they sleep etc. People who believe in ghosts just infer all this information.
This can be applied to any religion, like heaven with god etc.

[Agent Intellect]

Not saying this is not right, but I think If I read this before I read the book I could misunderstand what you said. (or what the book meant)
Here's my attempt at explaining inferences
To infer something, Is to assume information not directly provided by the information given, eg if you saw a picture of a cat mid air attacking a bird, you would infer that the cat jumped at the bird (instead of falling from the sky, or shot from a cannon). Inferences as reffered to in this book, are the information we infer with no conscious thought, eg you wouldnt consciously have to think that the cat jumped at the bird, you would just know that information without any time or effort at all. or another example, If you saw tree fall down, and a man with an axe standing next to it call out timber, you would infer with no conscious effort, that the man cut down that tree. Even more, with no concious effort, you would also be inferring that the man yelled timber, and not the tree.
Humans need to make the inferences constantly in order to be able to be able to think efficiently.
In this book the author goes onto explain that with religion, we have to make lots of inferences when we believe them. Like ghosts for example. There meant to be dead humans that are invisble etc, but theres so many questions this raises, like what do ghosts eat, do they hang with each other, where do they sleep, do they sleep etc. People who believe in ghosts just infer all this information.
This can be applied to any religion, like heaven with god etc.

well, both were right, but yours definitely clarifies it better then mine. the main point being, theres a lot of things that we subconsciously "think" about when we see or hear something that isn't consciously thought about, in order for us to function. the mind needs to make those assumptions so it doesn't get bogged down with having to cycle through all of the possible information every time something happens.

[EditorOne]

Any Kurt Vonnegut fans here? The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent? "There is nothing we can do for God Almighty that the Almighty can't do a thousand times better for himself." God cares nothing about humanity, so you're free. "Take care of the people and God Almighty will take care of himself." "Sirens of Titan." A less than reverent book, obviously, and a novel to boot, but it speaks to the issue of why, if we must humanize our deities, we can't seem to pick a personality type that is less trouble for us.

Which leads to the next question: Anyone up for debating whether God is an ESFJ or whatever? Who wants to winkle out the personality traits of, say, the Hebrew god vs. oh, Isis? I'm not good on my Egyptian deities, sorry. Or Zeus or Thor. Buddha? INFP? Are there any P's among the deities? Seems like a J is almost a job description....

Just funning.

I think.

[NoID10ts]

I tried typing Jesus on another thread, but I guess it was some sort of sacriledge. My thinking on that, is that the model for Christianity is Jesus. So, would it be easier to model his behavior if you are the same type as him? If he was an extrovert, would it be harder for introverts and vice versa? If he was human he must have had a personality (one would hope).

Typing the nature of the different understandings of god would be an interesting pursuit. Can god be both and extrovert and an introvert? It's like the old "can god make a burrito so big, that he can't eat it" dilemma.

[EloquentBohemian]

Any Kurt Vonnegut fans here?
Love him. Slaughterhouse 5 is still my favourite of his, though.

Anyone up for debating whether God is an ESFJ or whatever? Who wants to winkle out the personality traits of, say, the Hebrew god vs. oh, Isis? I'm not good on my Egyptian deities, sorry. Or Zeus or Thor. Buddha? INFP? Are there any P's among the deities? Seems like a J is almost a job description....The pantheistic/polytheistic deities may be easier than a monotheistic one, considering the omnipotence and omniscient qualities, as they have more defined personalities. Aphrodite, for instance. Or Hermes.
Then there's Pele. Volatile, for sure.
I think this deserves its own thread. You should start one.

[EloquentBohemian]

To return to one of the original questions in the OP:
a big topic of cognitive science of religion seems to be: are humans wired to believe in religion? which to me, also raises the question that if we are wired for religion, wouldn't it be just as easy to say that God wired us that way? but then to that, if God supposedly wired us all the same way, why so many Gods?I'm not cognisant on Cognitive Science (thanks for the links, Agent Intellect) as I would like to be (too much knowledge, too little time), but I would say that we are 'hard-wired' more for questioning and seeking answers, which would result in choosing religion in some cases.
Human curiosity gazes at the night sky and ponders 'what it is' and possibly, 'why is it here' and 'why is it the way it is'. It (human curiosity) fingers the leaf of a plant or watches birds soaring among the clouds and wonders the same.
Eventually, it wonders why it is here. Why it is the way it is. If it, and everything else, is made somehow or just is.

I think that to propose that humans are 'wired for religion' would be a limitation on the scope of our inquisitiveness, that our imagination goes beyond categorisations.

[Agent Intellect]

first and foremost, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is one of my favorite authors. Cats Cradle, Sirens of Titan, and Slaughterhouse 5 are some of the most imaginitive books i've ever read.

thats kind of what i'm saying in one of my replies, though. isn't it human logic to think that there needs to be a reason why things are here? kind of what Wadlez clarified in his post: the cat must be in the air because it jumped. existence must be here because something created it (while the question of what created it is a good scientific question, ie "what made the mountain?" it doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious creation. it could come about by some natural means). things must be the way they are because someone made them that way. its very human to think that something had to have been made, that if something was made, it has to have been made for some sort of purpose.

[EloquentBohemian]

isn't it human logic to think that there needs to be a reason why things are here? kind of what Wadlez clarified in his post: the cat must be in the air because it jumped. existence must be here because something created it (while the question of what created it is a good scientific question, ie "what made the mountain?"
On any scale smaller than the universal, I think we look for cause and effect, and can diiscover a chain of events which possibly satisfies, yet to the questions 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' or 'How did everything come into existence?', the answer is not apparent.
Hence, anxiety sets in and an answer must be found, so we create answers, such as external eternal omnipotent deities who were primary cause of existence, as example.

it doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious creation. it could come about by some natural means). things must be the way they are because someone made them that way. its very human to think that something had to have been made, that if something was made, it has to have been made for some sort of purpose.I think for many people, on the scale of the universal, its creation would have to have been conscious, there would have to have been a reason or purpose for existence existing; for if there was no reason/purpose, this would imply that there would be no reason/purpose for an individual's existence either.

I am Existentialist in this. Existence always was and always will be. There is no primary cause whatsoever. Existence is random, with no underlying plan, reason, or purpose. Existence preceeds essence in any form, sentient or non-sentient.
I came to this by way of investigating and, at times, involving myself in various streams of thought which were founded on a primal cause, such as an omnipotent Being, as well as those which had no foundation of prime cause.
Existentialist thought satisfies my need for logical process while leaving room for 'unknowing' and 'mystery' (so to speak).

[wadlez]

"On any scale smaller than the universal, I think we look for cause and effect, and can diiscover a chain of events which possibly satisfies, yet to the questions 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' or 'How did everything come into existence?', the answer is not apparent.
Hence, anxiety sets in and an answer must be found, so we create answers, such as external eternal omnipotent deities who were primary cause of existence"

Thats interesting.
In the book, It trys to identifie why it is people have religion and superstitions, and first eliminates the reasons people commonly believe. One of them Is that religion helps explain how things work. Any answer religion/superstition uses to explain something raises about 1000 more questions. For example (stolen from the book) In africa, tribes explain that thunder is the gods yelling in anger. This raises so many more questions, such as, Why cant we see them, how many of them are there, what do they do the rest of the time etc etc.
By definition of an explanation: a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable, religious explanations just make things less understandable so that cannot be the reason.

Another reason people think people turn to superstition, like you said, is to relieve anxiety (especially about death). If you look at any religion though, in the end they create allot more anxiety than they relieve. Eg if you have sex with a woman before marriage you go to hell, have an abortion and your going to hell and killing a soul etc.
Not just the main stream religions, also tribes who believe in witches etc, do silly rituals to ward of witches and ghosts, that are very time consuming and spend most of there time worrying about them.

[Agent Intellect]

what i find fascinating is that Gods all throughout history have always been very human, but the omnipotence of God has ever increased as human innovation and knowledge has increased. there seems to me to be a direct correlation with humans figuring things out that explains some of Gods supposed mysterious power and God becoming more abstract and more powerful. earlier on, the Gods controlled natural phenomena through very human means (throwing lightning bolts and so forth) but as these things become more explainable by natural means, God has to become more abstract and more un-reachable.

also, the book brings up the interesting point that human minds are wired for hunting prey and avoiding predation. just like in most animals, this means that we have a "hyperactive agent detection", meaning, we see occurrences (like creaking in the hallway of your house at night) as happening as a result of someone else (even if the someone else is a ghost or spirit)instead of just happening because of the house re-settling. its a defense mechanism, because if humans had a low agent detection, we would not have survived as long as we have (we wouldn't be as good of hunters and we'd be easy prey). because of this inference system, its easy for us to see Gods or other supernatural phenomena (ghosts or spirits or aliens etc) in the natural occurences around us. its a rather automatic response to us to assume that someone had to have done it.

[NoID10ts]

I've heard the belief in god or other supernatural goings on, as a misfiring in the mind related to primitive survival instincts. I probably won't explain it right, because I can't recall all the details, but I'll try. i'm not even sure I can defend it properly, but I can at least lay out the concept as I remember it.

The human mind is capable of determining the source of a noise or other event whose source is not readily apparent, through investigation. But to disern the cause can take up valuable time that could be fatal. The instinct of survival is to assume that the source of the event is a threat, or rather, caused by a living, predatory, being, and react accordingly.

Take, for example, the sound of a stick breaking in the woods. It may just be an old branch snapping under its own weight or it could be a dangerous predator on the prowl. The prudent thing to do is to assume it's a predator, rather than actually investigate the source.

If this instinct is so deep within us, we may use it to extrapolate the reason for lightning, wind, etc as created by another living being. Thus, a development in deity is a misfire of survival instinct. In time the misfirings develop into well formed theologies that are passed down from generation to generation and evolve along with humanities understanding of the way the world works.

It may all be BS but i just thought I would throw it out there.

[Agent Intellect]

its pretty much the same idea that i stated. people start off with the notion that there is a God, so then these phenomena are attributed as evidence of Gods interaction with us. nobody will say that something was caused by Allah or the Christian God without already having a knowledge of what Allah or God is. people will, however, use something supernatural as an explanation, because humans are the only animal that have the ability to imagine things as oppose to other animals who would simply infer that its a predator.

[Agent Intellect]

i wonder about human morals. it seems to me that Gods of all types throughout history have shared the same moral principles that humans do. the morals we have seem to serve the purpose of keeping a cohesive social order instead of personal benefit, which makes sense being that humans are a social creature. individually, each one of us would benefit much more from lying, stealing, and cheating for our own gains, but our social structure would not last if these were our inherit moral principles. why do we feel bad about taking something that isn't ours but we don't feel bad about breaking some arbitrary rule like not adhering to a specific dress code (even if we might feel embarassed about looking foolish, we wouldn't really feel sad about it)?

i wonder, though, if humans were solitary creatures, if the morals that our personal Gods taught and enforced would be any different, if they would be much more opportunistic? "Thou shalt steal if it means surviving longer" "Thou shalt commit adultry if it means passing on more of your genes".

[Agent Intellect]

nobody wants to argue about religion anymore? c'mon!

[EloquentBohemian]

Thinking. Too many threads on here worth thinking about.
Could result in a brain hernia.;)

[wadlez]

Thats a cool idea noid10ts

"also, the book brings up the interesting point that human minds are wired for hunting prey and avoiding predation. just like in most animals, this means that we have a "hyperactive agent detection", meaning, we see occurrences (like creaking in the hallway of your house at night) as happening as a result of someone else (even if the someone else is a ghost or spirit)instead of just happening because of the house re-settling. its a defense mechanism, because if humans had a low agent detection, we would not have survived as long as we have (we wouldn't be as good of hunters and we'd be easy prey). because of this inference system, its easy for us to see Gods or other supernatural phenomena (ghosts or spirits or aliens etc) in the natural occurences around us. its a rather automatic response to us to assume that someone had to have done it."

I didnt get that far yet, but thats sweet, similiar to an explanation i created and was telling my friends. Going to have to borrow the book again and finish it

"i wonder, though, if humans were solitary creatures, if the morals that our personal Gods taught and enforced would be any different, if they would be much more opportunistic? "Thou shalt steal if it means surviving longer" "Thou shalt commit adultry if it means passing on more of your genes".

When you look at the reason religions were created it cancels that out. Like imagine the people who created chrisitanity, romans edited/created it to control the population, they wouldnt make a religion that taught stealing etc.
Even if we did not need our complex social networks and groups, the person or people who create the religion would have to do it for there benefit, and that would overide wanting to teach what is actually best for the individual.

[Agent Intellect]

When you look at the reason religions were created it cancels that out. Like imagine the people who created chrisitanity, romans edited/created it to control the population, they wouldnt make a religion that taught stealing etc.
Even if we did not need our complex social networks and groups, the person or people who create the religion would have to do it for there benefit, and that would overide wanting to teach what is actually best for the individual.

thats still thinking in a social context, though. there would be no need to control masses if you only had to worry about yourself. if you're solitary, the benefit of the religion (and this is why i said personal God) would be for peoples own personal benefit. obviously, this is all hypothetical, as humankind would not have become as advanced as it is if we weren't social creatures.

[wadlez]

I see. what is personal god btw?

[Agent Intellect]

well, essentially everyone that believes in God has a "personal" God. nobody has the exact same concept of God as anyone else. but what i meant was that, if humans were solitary animals, there wouldn't be any need for people to share a common God (ie there wouldn't be billions of people accepting christ as their personal savior) as they would come up with and worship their very own God that reflects their own personal values instead of societies values.

[wadlez]

Oh I c, I wonder if we were left alone if we would all create our own gods though.
I think religion might be something you would have to be taught be someone, I mean you would have some little superstitions, but I dont think you would create god or anything. Think about churches and preists and the amount of coersion it takes just to believe in christianity.

Yeah I think that they would make there own personal values which would be dominant over societal values in that situation, but not religious.

[Agent Intellect]

Oh I c, I wonder if we were left alone if we would all create our own gods though.
I think religion might be something you would have to be taught be someone, I mean you would have some little superstitions, but I dont think you would create god or anything. Think about churches and preists and the amount of coersion it takes just to believe in christianity.

Yeah I think that they would make there own personal values which would be dominant over societal values in that situation, but not religious.

i disagree. people naturally want an explanation for things, and human logic tells us that things have to have been made (at least complex things). and, even a human who has been seperated from other humans all his life will have the same social instincts that others would have (even if the social loyalty is to "wolves" or whatever) and have the same "don't kill things of your own species" and "don't steal from your own species" type moral codes.

[wadlez]

" even a human who has been seperated from other humans all his life will have the same social instincts "

Yes thats right, but we were talking: "if humans were solitary animals"


People naturally want an explanation for things
As the book says and I explained earlier in this post, explanation is not the cause of religion, as it creates more questions than it answers.

[Da Blob]

i've recently picked up the book Religion Explained (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965), which has a lot to do with the cognitive science of religion. it seems to be a pretty non-bias'd book (it talks a lot more about religions besides just christianity then it does about the main religions) although it does have a little bit of an atheist leaning.

i'm not finished with the book yet, but it does raise some interesting points (not just about religion, but about superstition and the belief in the paranormal in general) about things like mental inferences and memetics.

the main thing it seems to be getting at (so far) is that the human brain is hardwired to believe in the paranormal, but that its also hard wired to believe in only certain types of paranormal. basically, our paranormal beliefs are generally humanistic but with abnormal traits.

for instance, people believe in ghosts, but they believe in ghosts as if they are human but with a few abnormal traits. in every culture, ghosts are people that perceive their environment the same way, they remember things that have already happened, and they think basically the same way people do. if someone were to tell you that there was a ghost that only remembers things that have yet to happen, or that the ghost only sees the here and now and immediately forgets everything that happens, you would probably dismiss it immediately.

(not really in the book, but something i've noticed) no matter how transendant or beyond human comprehension people seem to say God is, they still attribute human traits to him/her/it/them. God loves people, and he wants this or that for people, and God even cares enough to help (some) people. and why does God have an aversion to greed, or stealing, or killing? doesn't benevolence seem like a very human trait?

or if you take the more mainstream approach to God, why does he hate people? why would God supposedly (according to people like Jerry Falwell) hate homosexuals, or hate people of other religions, and why would God bless our troops but not somebody elses troops?

a big topic of cognitive science of religion seems to be: are humans wired to believe in religion? which to me, also raises the question that if we are wired for religion, wouldn't it be just as easy to say that God wired us that way? but then to that, if God supposedly wired us all the same way, why so many Gods?

some good links for people interested in the cognitive science of religion:

Lessons for Religious Education From Cognitive Science of Religion (http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=155290&source=r_health)
What Is Cognitive Science? (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/RelCogSci08.htm)
A Christians View on the Book "Religion Explained" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/papers/Edinburgh_Murphy_text.pdf) (to me, this .pdf sounds bias'd, as the author immediately says without explanation "this book only applies to other religions, not christianity!" but i added it here to keep myself from sounding biasd to atheism. its a good read, nonetheless)

Well I did read the entire article and it was not critical at all, although it was rather shallow, kind of an introductory style for school children.

However, the Name of Arthur Peacocke was referenced and it rang a bell so I borrowed his 8 statements about the relationship between Science and Religion (from WIKI). We have gone over this ground on numerous threads, concerning big bang or intelligent design discussions...

Relationship between theology and science typology
In the introduction to The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century [1], Peacocke lists a set of eight relationships that could fall upon a two-dimensional grid. This list is in part a survey of deliberations that occurred at the World Council of Churches Conference on "Faith, Science and the Future", Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Science and theology are concerned with two distinct realms
Reality is thought of as a duality, operating within the human world, in terms of natural/supernatural, spatio-temporal/the eternal, the order of nature/the realm of faith, the natural(or physical)/the historical, the physical-and-biological/mind-and-spirit.

Science and theology are interacting approaches to the same reality
Accuracy of this view is widely and strongly resisted among those who otherwise differ in their theologies

Science and theology are two distinct non-interacting approaches to the same reality
The idea that theology tries to answer the question why, while science tries to answer the question how

Science and theology constitute two different language systems
Each are two distinct "language games" whose logical pre-conditions can have no bearing upon each other accorinding to late-Wittgensteinian theory

Science and theology are generated by quite different attitudes (in their practitioners)
the attitude of science is that of objectivity and logical neutrality; that of theology personal involvement and commitment.

Science and theology are both subservient to their objects and can only be defined in relation to them

Both are intellectual disciplines shaped by their object (nature or God) to which they direct their attention. Both include a confessional and a rational factor. [2]
Science and theology may be integrated

Science generates a metaphysic in terms of which theology is then formulated

[wadlez]

Went and got that book from the library again a week ago, been cranking it, about 75% finished.

Did you end up finishing it?