• In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Religious kids believe in fantasy

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: SIWOTI

Unread post

Interbane said: There is a strange aspect to the emotions that drive me that I can’t quite pin down. It’s the agitation (or perhaps fascination) you feel when you find out someone believes that 2+2=5, or has some other fact wrong. There is the desire to correct them. Perhaps a part of this emotional stew is pride. Perhaps another part of it is disdain. But I feel no fear nor anxiety in my e-motive makeup.
This is an excellent description of a new emotion that has been in existence only since about 1992. It goes by the acronym SIWOTI. This emotion is nothing to be ashamed of; almost everyone on Booktalk has it in spades!
SIWOTI
Acronym for "Someone Is Wrong On The Internet." Describes the compulsion to post rebuttals to online nonsense, in the vain hope that it will somehow set the record straight.

"I try to stay away from Dinesh D'Souza's ravings, but when you've got SIWOTI syndrome, the man is like a magnet of wrong." (PZ Myers, 3/April/2008)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SIWOTI
Image
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Hi Interbane, How are you? To some extent I understand where you are coming from, as you describe in your last post here.

It gets overheated at times and a bit fractious on all sides.Personally, I've found it quite good to be challenged on my understanding and beliefs. As a result think I have a better though imperfect understanding of secular humanist thinking and have had to consider your ideas.


For you, religion including Christianity, is superstition and contrary to reason.As Robert would say, "Fantasy is inocculation against reason."We of course think our beliefs are reasonable,objectively and subjectively and that's why it's a King Canute type task you are undertaking. I've found it stimulating and enjoyable overall, while remaining stubbornly unconvinced.

P.s. Very amusing Landroid.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

ant wrote:fallacious reasoning that the world would be better without belief in "fantasy"
The underlying question here is the value of myth. Fantasy, when believed literally, functions mythically, as stories that give meaning to people's lives. Even true belief can have a mythic function, where an ideology grounded in scientific evidence is simplified for mass consumption.

Believing untrue things can be memetically adaptive. For example, believing that sin will send you to hell can serve to reduce the incidence of unethical behaviour such as murder and theft and dissolute laziness. Believing that Jesus Christ came to save the world can inspire people to develop spiritually by reflecting on moral ideas in the Bible.

I think it will take a long time for human culture to evolve to the point that religious fantasy is generally understood as allegory. However, this process of the cultural shift from belief to knowledge as a basis of values is steadily happening.

There is a broad modern consensus that Adam and Eve are mythical characters, and that humans actually evolved as described by biological science. But nearly half of Americans accept the traditional fantasy that the world was created by God in the last ten thousand years. This is a dangerous fantasy, because it establishes a contempt for scientific knowledge and evidential reasoning, placing blind faith and acceptance of traditional authority in a position that encourages spiritual alienation from nature. It means that creationist believers are not well placed to sort fact from fiction, as they have something like a false screen before their eyes that distorts the information getting through to them. This makes it harder for them to assess the likely consequences of different courses of action.

The fantasy of belief in the historical Jesus Christ is far more complex. Jesus serves as a valuable mythical archetype of human excellence, speaking truth to power, preaching love and forgiveness, and providing a keystone for community values and belonging. He can do this whether he existed or not, such is his miraculous awesomeness. The emotional power of myths such as transubstantiation and heaven provide immense emotional comfort for believers, and can even inspire them to become better people.

Similarly, a person may have a fantasy that they can become a billionaire through entrepreneurial inventiveness. Even if they fail, and if others can see their ideas lack commercial sense, the effort inspired by the visionary dream is probably a good thing.

So it is wrong to just condemn all untrue belief. Just because Jesus and Adam did not exist does not mean the stories about them are without moral value. But it is possible to analyse these beliefs scientifically, looking for the unconscious psychological drivers that give the belief its resonance.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote: The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is the bedrock of modern scientific understanding of biology, and therefore of human nature, given that humans are biological organisms. Without understanding of evolution we are in fantasy land.

That it explains human nature seems a grandiose claim to put it mildly.
May I remind you Flann, my comment was in response to your assertion that
Flann 5 wrote:In questioning the philosophical grounds of neo-darwinian derived ideas about humans and human nature, I guess I'm trying to make the case against them.
I said evolutionary understanding is the bedrock. That does not by any means suggest evolution provides a comprehensive theory of human nature. All the sciences and humanities need to be considered for a systematic approach to human nature, which is something of an infinite task. All I am saying though, is that any claims about human nature which conflict with scientific knowledge are wrong.
Robert Tulip wrote:Fantasy is innoculation against reason..
Flann 5 wrote:.As Robert would say, "Fantasy is inocculation against reason."
I always thought, rather innocuously and innocently, that inoculation had two n's. Inoculate is one of the most commonly misspelled words. But the usual mistake is two n's not two c's.
I could say you believe in a "virgin birth" Who or what conceived our universe naturalistically from nothing?
No, you could not say I believe in a virgin birth, because I don't, except where science indicates it happens, known as parthenogenesis.

It is completely invalid to use our lack of knowledge of the origin of the universe to develop the fantasy of an intentional creator God. You should not jump from 'I don't know' to 'my fantasy must be true.'
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Flann wrote:I'm again co-opting the Agnostic Jew,David Berlinski as counsel for the prosecution against it. Here,if you are interested, is an essay;On the Origins of the Mind. http://www.discovery.org/f/388
I've read this paper before, though I've forgotten the details. What I do remember is asking my conversational participant to summarize Berlinski's points. Try it real quick before reading any further into my post. You'll quickly see the issue with Berlinski.

You'd summarize the first of his three points as an argument from ignorance. He doesn't see how causation could be traced backwards, therefore the mind is magical. He makes an appeal to infinite regress, but that is a logical conundrum that affects propositions rather than causation, so it doesn't apply.

His argument against the mind being just another organ is more valid, and I agree with some of it. The unborn mind is like a tilled garden with seeds scattered across it. It is the ultimate mix of biological and informational evolution, and at the point where information takes over, it truly is like any other organ. Baby sees, baby cries. Baby feels pain, baby cries. But then it develops, not through an expression of genes, but through assimilation and processing of information. Anyone who thinks we're currently at the point where we can entirely understand the human brain does not understand how complex it is. Yet that is Berlinski's argument against the second simile. "In both cases, something remains unexplained." At least he doesn't use that as a premise to conclude that there is something magical happening, as he did in the first part. That would be an argument from ignorance, once again. Yes, there will be something left unexplained for decades regarding the human mind. That does not mean we don't have enough of the pieces to see what the end picture looks like.

I didn't bother to reread the third point. Sorry to say this, but I've long since disregarded what Berlinski writes. His arguments are often tangential to the point and utterly unconvincing. I think what is persuasive to you Flann isn't his argument, but his rhetoric. To quote Bertrand Russel: "To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy."
Try looking past his flowery words and you'll see there is little structure to his arguments.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

"A certain power to alter things,indwells the human soul" Heresy to the secular mind.
Berlinski quotes Magnusson here.You decry what you consider rhetorical persuasion, Interbane, which is fair enough.I think though his criticisms are valid.
The brain and by extension the mind is like a computer.First simile.The computer computes and performs tasks in the real world.The regress problem, if I understand correctly is setting the initial state.In the computer's case,the program which invariably in this example originates in the mind of the programmer.A conclusion oddly,that the materialist doesn't jump to when it comes to the human mind.
Interbane wrote:The unborn mind is like a tilled garden with seeds scattered across it. It is the ultimate mix of biological and informational evolution, and at the point where information takes over, it truly is like any other organ. Baby sees, baby cries. Baby feels pain, baby cries. But then it develops, not through an expression of genes, but through assimilation and processing of information.
Maybe you could expand on this as I'm not quite sure what you mean. Does the mind get born? I seem to remember you saying in the past that psychopaths were perfectly made to be psychopaths. They are 'wired' that way. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you,but surely this is an argument of genetic expression.Also you said that our base impulses and emotions are "residues of our evolutionary heritage" What do you mean by this?
I think Berlinski demonstrates the inadequacy and often absurdity of evolutionary psychology to come anywhere close to explaining what really goes on in the human mind.
I also think there are real problems with the materialist reductionist explanations including the idea that the self concious I is some sort of extension, concocted by the brain.The brain as explanator seems grossly inadequate to me. To illustrate an inherent materialist logical fallacy in this matter, I'm giving a link to the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne who dissects one such notion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnH5tk22ee4 It's titled; Implausibility of Physical Determinism. By Richard Swinburne.
On Robert's point of virgin births and the origin of the universe. I just thought that God might be more up to the task than a non-existent universe creating itself from nothing.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

,the program which invariably in this example originates in the mind of the programmer.
Not invariably. We are at the point now where there are AI programs that write code. The man who writes the AI code does not have any way to know what the AI will produce.

Or see the wikipedia article and scroll down to Meta-Genetic Programming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming

Or a scholarly article if the wikipedia article doesn't satiate: http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik ... 0008-5.pdf

The human mind, unlike a computer, is being "programmed" every second of every day, and has been since before birth. Formation and rearrangement of synapses never ceases. There is no single "initial state".

The simile of a computer to a human brain is that informational processing is supervenient on physical systems. The argument need not go further to have it's impact. We don't need to trace all inputs. Berlinski's tact of pointing out starting conditions is a distinction that makes no difference.
Maybe you could expand on this as I'm not quite sure what you mean. Does the mind get born? I seem to remember you saying in the past that psychopaths were perfectly made to be psychopaths. They are 'wired' that way. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you,but surely this is an argument of genetic expression.
Our genes have an impact on our psychology. The impact is overall brain size of the various regions, hormone and neurotransmitter ratios to reuptake cells, initial synaptic wiring of the sympathetic nervous systems, and other items that I'm sure we haven't pinned down yet.

But as we both know, are brains are far more than those few items. All the information we retain, categorized as "knowing how" and "knowing that", along with recognition of our 10(or 11?) senses, is information that serves as an "input" to our brains from before we are born. Even though there is a small amount of influence that can be traced back to genetic expression, almost all of this is acquired above and beyond the expression of our genes.

I don't believe psychopaths are perfectly made to be psychopathic. Trauma at an early stage in life could damage a person's ability to feel empathy, and is a likely cause of psychopathy.

As far as the "residue of our evolutionary heritage" part. Slight variations from person to person could hypothetically be plotted on a graph, and would resemble a bell curve. At one extreme, you would have a person who produces excess oxytocin. The result would be an exceptionally loving, empathetic person. At the other end would be a person whose brain creates very little oxytocin, and so has an inability to bond or feel empathy.

Oxytocin, Dopamine, Seratonin, GABA, Glutamate, etc, are all chemicals that affect how our brains work and the emotions we feel. They "influence" the manner in which we learn new information, but do not "control" the information. They are part of our evolutionary heritage, but the majority of the information that is held within the brain is not.
I also think there are real problems with the materialist reductionist explanations including the idea that the self concious I is some sort of extension, concocted by the brain.
I challenge you to take drugs. See what happens to your conscious self. :tease:

There is supervenience. This much I think you're required to admit. The issue is, if you admit supervenience to at least a partial extent, then what reason do you have not to admit supervenience for the rest? Consider the fact that when we lose consciousness, our brain-state correspondingly changes with our mind-state. There is supervenience to consciousness. This is strong evidence that our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. Unless you have contrary evidence that is just as strong, I'm curious why you aren't sold on the plausibility of the explanation.
Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne who dissects one such notion. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnH5tk22ee4 It's titled; Implausibility of Physical Determinism. By Richard Swinburne.
I'd like to watch it, but cannot watch videos currently. Is there a transcript? Or could you summarize his most compelling points? I know this is meaningless to say, but I assure you that physical determinism is not implausible.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

I'll have to think about your post before responding.
I don't know if a transcript of Swinburne is available.I'll have a look.Sam Harris talks about the timing of brain activity in neuro-scientific experiments,preceding people making choices and boils it down to,it was really your brain that decided and not you.Swinburne shows the fallacy of the conclusion but it would take some time to go into here.Swinburne is addressing Epi-phenomenalism.
Neuro-scientific experiments indicate some kind of electrical potential build up in the brain prior to people making decisions,(the mental act) followed by brain activity followed by the action.Swinburne argues it is the intention of the person that really causes the action.i.e mental events,thoughts, intentions, cause brain events resulting in action. Brain events can and do cause mental events also.However,it is the intention and decision of the person to do something that is the real cause of the action. He is arguing that the conscious I or self is primary in the event. He expresses this as mental events,thoughts,intentions influence the brain.He as a philosopher makes the case better than I can.
I have experienced the altered state of consciousness of weed in the past. I don't doubt that chemicals affect the brain and influence how we experience our sense of consciousness. Still, I think and do things even then.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Swinburne was referring to studies done by Libet. The readiness potential is the brain, processing information before it enters our awareness. If I asked you to name an assassinated president, your consciousness could not trace the information back along neural channels amongst the millions of connections and interconnections that happen prior to the answer entering your awareness. There is a great deal of processing that happens inside our heads that is unconscious, and it happens before we are aware of it. That is what the readiness potential reflects.

Saying that it is a "build-up" that some metaphysical force allows to be released is clutching at straws. Why would the brain have so much going on in that moment, if it were doing anything other than processing information? Are the neurons just firing in circles, waiting for the soul to say "go!"? Read the following article. Similar experiments were performed where the timing of a person's decision to move was predicted with greater than 80% accuracy, based on neural activity that happened nearly 1.5 seconds before the decision. Read the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052770/
I have experienced the altered state of consciousness of weed in the past. I don't doubt that chemicals affect the brain and influence how we experience our sense of consciousness. Still, I think and do things even then.
The way you express it is odd. How we experience our sense of consciousness. Is it not the consciousness itself that is altered? The alteration cannot be undone without first allowing the chemical to leave the body. You speculate that consciousness is merely a window for the soul to see through? What happens when we go unconscious? Does the soul temporarily turn off?

It seems that your worldview is no different than that of a physicalist. You merely go one step forward and postulate a metaphysical force that is along for the ride, watching everything from behind a window of consciousness. If there is no difference, the simpler explanation should be preferred. Parsimony.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

It seems to me that the materialist reductionist explanation, reduces us to organic,sensory informational processing machines. If the conscious thought and decision making we have and do is illusory.We thought we did it, but actually the processing machine really did it before we had the thought,intention.decision and action.This I think Swinburne shows to be fallacious and that it is the conscious thought intent, and decision that results in the action,albeit there is necessary interaction between the conscious self and the brain.

Beyond this it seems to leave us in Huxley's brave new world.Why not if possible increase everyone's Oxytocin? Psychiatrists currently, fortunately, use chemical "straitjackets " to curtail aggression in elderly Alzheimer's patients as a last resort.Sometimes they feel they have little choice though, and it reduces the recipients to zombiesque states in one degree or another. The real person is still there but diminished in some ways.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”