Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Just wanted to reach out and provide some comfort. Though we may argue, I’m still moved to hear that you have such tragic and pitiful family and friends. Be there for them in this desperate hour. Just be there. In the meantime, you are a shining example of compassion in treating with such pitiable folk. You’re like a saint working among lepers. Well, minus the contagious concern.[/quote]

Thanks for your compassion! It can get rough from time to time…sometimes I feel like Anne Sullivan, except that instead of one single Helen Keller, I have been charged with tending to the needs of dozens. It’s a rough job, but the reward of hearing a friend admit that snakes probably never actually talked to people is sweet enough to justify the backbreaking work it takes to get there.

182

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Just wanted to reach out and provide some comfort. Though we may argue, I’m still moved to hear that you have such tragic and pitiful family and friends. Be there for them in this desperate hour. Just be there. In the meantime, you are a shining example of compassion in treating with such pitiable folk. You’re like a saint working among lepers. Well, minus the contagious concern.[/quote]

Thanks for your compassion! It can get rough from time to time…sometimes I feel like Anne Sullivan, except that instead of one single Helen Keller, I have been charged with tending to the needs of dozens. It’s a rough job, but the reward of hearing a friend admit that snakes probably never actually talked to people is sweet enough to justify the backbreaking work it takes to get there.[/quote]

This was the best thinly veiled back and forth this year. And I helped!

183

[quote]talldude wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No, it’s not. It would not be deductive if it were.[/quote]

I’m going to jump in here and say that YES, deductive logic is based on assumptions. Everything we observe is based on assumptions. For example, we assume that the laws of physics cannot change over time. Everything we observe and deduce in the physical world rests on this assumption. However, we do not know that physics can’t change over time, and there is no way to verify this.

If you want to pull in the matrix argument (reality is not real), that works as well. However, it also makes everything pointless so IMO it’s not a great argument.[/quote]

No it’s not, period. Any assumptions violate the very basis of deductive reasoning. A purely deductive argument has no assumptions otherwise it becomes and inductive, not a deductive argument. By definition, deduction does not rely on assumptions, it simply cannot and still be a deductive reasoning.

“The premises of a valid deductive argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/
Just read number 1…

The matrix was the most colossally stupid movie I ever saw half of…When they got their “What if ‘dog’ like really meant ‘cat’” attempt at profundity, I couldn’t take it. I’d rather watch a gerbil screw then have somebody talk stupid and try to make it profound…

184

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Just wanted to reach out and provide some comfort. Though we may argue, I’m still moved to hear that you have such tragic and pitiful family and friends. Be there for them in this desperate hour. Just be there. In the meantime, you are a shining example of compassion in treating with such pitiable folk. You’re like a saint working among lepers. Well, minus the contagious concern.[/quote]

Thanks for your compassion! It can get rough from time to time…sometimes I feel like Anne Sullivan, except that instead of one single Helen Keller, I have been charged with tending to the needs of dozens. It’s a rough job, but the reward of hearing a friend admit that snakes probably never actually talked to people is sweet enough to justify the backbreaking work it takes to get there.[/quote]

This was the best thinly veiled back and forth this year. And I helped![/quote]

Internet high five!

185

[quote]talldude wrote:<<< You do well to dodge my questions, because you don’t have answers. No one does to those questions I posed. >>>[/quote]No one has answers period except the God I go to for mine. Look friend you are waaaaay late to this party. We have been over everything you mentioned one thousand times and for me it was one thousand times before I ever heard of this website.

186

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
.

187

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

Deductive reasoning still has implicit, unprovable assumptions, and thus its claims are ultimately unprovable as well.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Where did you get that? Assumptions aren’t deduced, they are inferred. Second, there are many more deductive arguments that Cosmology which is what you are thinking of. And like I have said before, if you can find even one instance where one of the premises of cosmology aren’t true, then you have debunked the argument. Nobody has ever done that…[/quote]

Are you aware that deductive logic itself is based on assumptions?[/quote]

No, it’s not. It would not be deductive if it were.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Take a look at the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-contradiction, all of which are underlying assumptions of logic itself. If one of those assumptions is false, deductive conclusions could be false as well.

We simply don’t know any particular theory is right, and anyone claiming otherwise is uneducated and is probably operating under a confirmatory bias.

188

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:<<< You do well to dodge my questions, because you don’t have answers. No one does to those questions I posed. >>>[/quote]No one has answers period except the God I go to for mine. Look friend you are waaaaay late to this party. We have been over everything you mentioned one thousand times and for me it was one thousand times before I ever heard of this website.
[/quote]

The validity of your answers derives from the validity of your particular god. You don’t know if your particular god is real, so you cannot know if the truths derived from that god are similarly real.

When I ask how you KNOW your god is real, you are nonplussed. Your reasoning is circular:

“I know my god is real because my god has told me he is real, and I know my god has told me he is real because my god is real.”

189

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:<<< You do well to dodge my questions, because you don’t have answers. No one does to those questions I posed. >>>[/quote]No one has answers period except the God I go to for mine. Look friend you are waaaaay late to this party. We have been over everything you mentioned one thousand times and for me it was one thousand times before I ever heard of this website.
[/quote]

The validity of your answers derives from the validity of your particular god. You don’t know if your particular god is real, so you cannot know if the truths derived from that god are similarly real.

When I ask how you KNOW your god is real, you are nonplussed. Your reasoning is circular:

“I know my god is real because my god has told me he is real, and I know my god has told me he is real because my god is real.”[/quote]Absolutely

190

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]talldude wrote:<<< You do well to dodge my questions, because you don’t have answers. No one does to those questions I posed. >>>[/quote]No one has answers period except the God I go to for mine. Look friend you are waaaaay late to this party. We have been over everything you mentioned one thousand times and for me it was one thousand times before I ever heard of this website.
[/quote]

The validity of your answers derives from the validity of your particular god. You don’t know if your particular god is real, so you cannot know if the truths derived from that god are similarly real.

When I ask how you KNOW your god is real, you are nonplussed. Your reasoning is circular:

“I know my god is real because my god has told me he is real, and I know my god has told me he is real because my god is real.”[/quote]Absolutely
[/quote]

It is amazingly sad to know that you are proud of being an agent of circular reasoning. The brain that your God presumably gave you is being wasted.

191

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< It is amazingly sad to know that you are proud of being an agent of circular reasoning. The brain that your God presumably gave you is being wasted.[/quote]It is amazingly biblical that you are so proud and insolent as to delude yourself into believing that you are capable of even one single thought that is NOT circular without the infinite God whose finite image you are. Yet once again from a few weeks ago I said: [quote]Amen. =] 2+2 does not equal 4 without Him because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount they very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

You were pretty close BTW. Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.

It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.[/quote]

192

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< It is amazingly sad to know that you are proud of being an agent of circular reasoning. The brain that your God presumably gave you is being wasted.[/quote]It is amazingly biblical that you are so proud and insolent as to delude yourself into believing that you are capable of even one single thought that is NOT circular without the infinite God whose finite image you are. Yet once again from a few weeks ago I said: [quote]Amen. =] 2+2 does not equal 4 without Him because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount they very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

You were pretty close BTW. Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.

It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.[/quote]

[/quote]

I’ll say it again, you waste your brain with this dribble.

193

I think you were reaching for “drivel”, but thanks for the fabulous substantive advice. I’ll say again, you waste yours with this futile resistance toward He who alone is the possessor and source of any and all true knowledge whatsoever including your own.

194

Thank God for making me an atheist.

195

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Thank God for making me an atheist.[/quote]You’re catching on. That may be the most Calvinistic statement I’ve ever seen a pagan make.

196

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Thank God for making me an atheist.[/quote]You’re catching on. That may be the most Calvinistic statement I’ve ever seen a pagan make.
[/quote]
Please, I was quoting Ricky Gervais.

197

I don’t know who that is, but I was jist ribbin ya anyway =]

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t know who that is, but I was jist ribbin ya anyway =][/quote]

You should watch the Invention of Lying. (it’s a movie)

199

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

Deductive reasoning still has implicit, unprovable assumptions, and thus its claims are ultimately unprovable as well.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Where did you get that? Assumptions aren’t deduced, they are inferred. Second, there are many more deductive arguments that Cosmology which is what you are thinking of. And like I have said before, if you can find even one instance where one of the premises of cosmology aren’t true, then you have debunked the argument. Nobody has ever done that…[/quote]

Are you aware that deductive logic itself is based on assumptions?[/quote]

No, it’s not. It would not be deductive if it were.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Take a look at the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-contradiction, all of which are underlying assumptions of logic itself. If one of those assumptions is false, deductive conclusions could be false as well.
[/quote]
If a conclusion is false then it’s an invalid argument, not a deductive one.

Deductive logic isn’t ‘a theory’. It’s where correct premises lead to a correct conclusion. I don’t think attacking the bases tenets of logic is going to serve you well. Deductive conclusions tell what must be true, period. If you believe an argument is wrong then prove it wrong, but I can’t see how proving logic isn’t really logic but a bunch of assumptions is going to help since it is patently false.