Compartmentalise. It’s a trait of Homo sapien to convice themselves things are true, so they can believe any bullshit, try not to fall for it yourself in otjer areas.
The problem for me arises when they speak from authority on another subject they are expert in, if they’re so naive and easily misled on that, how can i trust their opinion on anything substantive?
A superb example of this is Katherine Hayhoe. I get around it by just reading nothing she writes on climate change because her evangelical christianisim just muddies the waters too much to take her at all seriously. On a side note, my goto is Professor Kevin Andersin.
The end scares most people so much that logic gets thrown out the window.
Tbh I think a lot of people bury that logical side deep down and compartmentalize. The narrative we tell ourselves can be quite powerful.
The way i think about it:
The brain has two halves (hemispheres)
The left hemisphere does rational thinking
the right hemisphere does magical thinking (which probably also covers religion)
Both of these hemispheres developed through evolution, because both of them are useful and beneficial to your life. That is why you should employ both.
Would that not require hypocrisy in a lot of areas?
Not everyone who is deeply religious is a true believer. Some just see it as a community, and the rigid adherance to the rules as the key to that community. One of the rules is to always say you’re a true believer, though. My sister in law is like this. She just decided one day to join a religion, researched the ones with the perks that best suited her and joined it.
My aunt joined a humanist church, which is basically “religion” for atheists. It was literally just Sunday mass without the worship.
You likely also participate in rituals that were taught to you that are not solely grounded in logic or science. Do you do things in a certain order for no reason other than your parents taught you to do so? Do you avoid eating certain foods because you never ate them growing up?
People who are raised religious may not be fanatic believers, but they may still be “culturally religious” e.g. take part in Ramadan, avoid eating pork, because that’s the way they grew up, and a lot of the time it means they can be included in cultural matters of the community they come from.
As for why some people are proper religious, fully believing and all, I also don’t think all beliefs have to be rational. Some beliefs are comforting. If it helps someone to get through a difficult time by believing there’s a higher power rooting for them, or who has pre-planned their suffering for a greater good, they may choose to believe that because it’s mentally easier. Arguably that is a rational belief anyway because it benefits you and makes your life easier to get through.
If it helps someone to get through a difficult time by believing there’s a higher power rooting for them, or who has pre-planned their suffering for a greater good, they may choose to believe that because it’s mentally easier.
Additionally, it can be a catalyst for seeking novel solutions and developing strengths we never knew we have if we can get over the victim mentality and allow it. I’m not saying that’s always the case. A stroke of fortune is often required.
I get your sentiment but all the rituals I picked up in life are nowhere near the seriousness of a religion though. You’re talking about choosing something that could potentially affect you for eternity vs me not wanting to eat guinea pigs because I didn’t grow up in Peru.
I understand that people find comfort in religion and a lot do it as a way to calm their existential crises but my question is how someone who is otherwise logical can separate religious beliefs into another folder. They knowingly fool themselves into believing something that may not be true or possibly even being tricked into following a false idol but they don’t apply those rules elsewhere.
Deep cultural conditioning. When a person approaches something totally new they will use reasonable standards of evidence, but in religious communities there’s a expectation present and deeply established that certain things shouldn’t be questioned, or at least don’t need to be shown true.
Note that in certain places there basically aren’t atheists, so it’s not like you need to be illogical relative to most to believe.
Historically/anthropologically, conforming to the beliefs of the society you live in is the most logical thing a human can do for their survival.
In the sense that people who aren’t really religious go to church to conform?
In the sense that people who aren’t actually being watched by a higher power will legitimately believe they are because believing anything else can be hazardous to their health.
Wait, there’s more: Some people are skeptical even of religion, yet still practice a religion.
We reconcile that by:
-
admitting that we can’t make sense of everything
-
recognizing that many of the ways our religion interacts with reality are aspirational rather than descriptive
-
rejecting dogma
-
choosing to persevere in doubt rather than cling to false certainty
Can I ask what religion you practice and what drives you to continue?
I’m Christian, Episcopalian. What drives me to continue practicing? There’s a lot of things:
Socially, I enjoy the sense of community that comes with being an active member of a congregation, and it provides both a reminder to and a venue for giving back in the form of volunteering and charity.
Personally, I appreciate the rhythm it gives to my weeks and years, with specific times set aside for joy and grief, reflection and action, uncomfortable growth and quiet recovery.
Spiritually, I draw both comfort and strength from my relationship with God; whether or not this is a spiritual sort of “rubber ducking” doesn’t change how it affects me.
Morally, I think the example of Christ is a good one to follow, and again, that doesn’t really depend on Him being a real historical figure.
deleted by creator
Yes you’re right. Church activities have a lot in common with hobbies and clubs, and church folk criticise me for saying that. Any time people get together for shared activities will exhibit a lot of commonality.
Not the commenter, but Christian as well. Consider myself non-denominational, but attend/worship at an Episcopalian Church. The hobby comment isn’t entirely untrue, but there’s more meaning to it than that for me at least.
Most hobbies don’t have such an outsized influence on my life. The hobbies that could would cost a lot of money.
you’re not wrong
Does it bother you that only one of those criteria is actually tied to faith in a god’s existence?
Sometimes!
My college chaplain often said “If religion makes you comfortable you’re doing it wrong.” So, yes, I’m bothered that so much of my connection to my religion is circumstancial, but I’d rather be uncomfortable about it than dishonest with myself. And admittedly, I’m kind of at a low point right now, so my answers might be very different in eighteen months.
That said, God exists or doesn’t regardless of what I believe. I don’t particularly need to take anything on faith to find value in my religion.
Why is it good that it makes you uncomfortable? And I’ll go a step further and ask whether all discomfort regarding religion is good. For example, was your chaplain saying you should be uncomfortable because you’re not sure if it’s rooted in truth, or were they saying you should be going out of your comfort zone and challenging yourself to do more and/or expressing your faith in new ways? If so, are the two equivalent?
I’m asking in genuine curiosity: I grew up Catholic, and never felt much of a community motivation for my religion. Once I got to college, I mostly stopped going to church, with occasional bursts where I’d decide to go for a month or so. So going to church dried up before my faith did for me, and I don’t really understand going in the absence of faith.
I hung on as an agnostic theist for years, though lately I think I’ve been more of an agnostic atheist. I agree with your sentiment on God existence not being predicated on belief, but have also reached the conclusion that if I need belief to accept something as true, it probably isn’t.
Definitely the “go out of your comfort zone” take. Christ loves us as we are, but you can’t stay the same, act the same, and have the true repentance required for salvation. Striving to be better is not comfortable. Confronting your own sins is not comfortable. Empathizing with the downtrodden is not comfortable. Going out and getting your hands dirty and your bank account emptier to help the poor, the sick, the widowed and orphaned, the homeless, the hurting is not comfortable. But that’s what the example of Christ requires us to do.
God exists or doesn’t regardless of what I believe.
This is a very profound realisation
Very nicely put. This describes my own faith almost to a T.
Did you grow up religious? Or maybe more specifically, did you grow up around this religious group and established connections young?
yes to both
I know this would be difficult to know for sure but you’ve probably thought about it before, do you feel you would have the same desire to belong to a religious community if you weren’t raised in that environment? Furthermore, did being raised in that environment lead you to turning down the possibility of belonging to another religious group?
Honestly, it’s such a deeply core part of my personality that I can’t envision someone without it that’s still “me”.
I know most people who don’t grow up religious don’t seek it out later (though some do) and I’m not vain enough to think that I’m that different from most people.
As to changing religions, yes, I’ve had the opportunity to convert, and yes, I felt no desire to because I’m mostly satisfied with my religion. I flirt with the idea of attending a Unitarian or Quaker congregation sometimes but I already belong in an Episcopal one, y’know?
I get what you mean, my mom is the same way. She continued going to church and church functions after I left because that was her community. She couldn’t name all 10 commandments but she’s so used to that life and those people that it would be like losing her entire social network if she stopped going.
So interesting!
Greatly worded imo.
There are doubts and things we can’t understand or explain no matter what we ultimately believe.
I personally left my religion and considered myself atheist but I continued to research other religions and belief systems and happened to have found one that I agreed with on a pretty consistent basis and didn’t oppose my other understandings of the world, obviously belief still fluctuates and I do have doubts but on average I believe my religion to be true more than I doubt it.
TLDR: No explanation/understanding is “beyond all reasonable doubt”, so “more likely than not” is enough and that happens to be a religious framework for me personally.
-
I used to know this guy who majored in astrophysics or astronomy (can’t remember which).
To paraphrase his reasoning: There is nothing about physics that prohibits the existence of a god. The Bible has many things that clash with modern scientific understanding, but the Bible was an interpretation of things as they stood almost two thousand years ago, and is therefore likely to fail in many of its explanations. Religion is about faith, science is not.
He considered himself a Christian, and didn’t see why that and his field of study would be mutually exclusive. Also, he was pretty open minded about most things and overall a pretty chill guy regarding other people’s view and lifestyles.
Yes, I know a guy like this. I’m not aware of his considerations of how he is able to separate science from religion, other than I guess the fact that they are two separate things.
I’m curious what you mean by “drop their skepticism.”
I believe the universe was created and I also believe that modern science does an incredibly good job describing the way it functions to the best of our ability. I do not believe the idea of religion is 100% at odds with science
By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don’t believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully
Gotcha gotcha
There is plenty of science with a non-reproducible basis. Richard Dawkins has gone as far to say that evolution is fact. And yet we have never observed one species changing into another - sure, the headlines say we have, but when you drill right down into the source material the best you can find is “these creatures do not normally reproduce with each other”. Note the wording: “do not normally”. Not “cannot”, which is what the headline fundamentally requires in order to be truly accurate.
Evolution in complex organisms takes millions of years so no it’s not something you’ll witness in your life time. The evolutions you do witness are in faster aging, less complex organisms such as microbes which we can practically witness evolving in real time. Evolution isn’t a theory, it is an inevitability, those that survive their surroundings pass on their genes, that is all that evolution is.
Also we can see evolution at work when bacteria develop resistance to medications.
Right, that’s the type of microbial evolution I mean
veritassium did a video replicating a FASCINATING study that proves that logical people get dramatically less logical when they encounter facts that contradicts their deeply held beliefs; they get even less logical that “non-logical” people
so they don’t consolidate the 2 sides of themselves; instead they apply their logic to the things that they don’t care much about and get less logical on the subjects/topic that they care more about it.
Man brains are so weird. Thank you for that video!
‘Man brains’ is different to ‘Man, brains’.
Man: Brains are so Weird
Also can someone help my uncle jack off the horse?
👋
the part that’s weird to me is that “non-logical” people are always equally non-logical and they’re always the same whether it’s something they care deeply about or not.
they never have to wonder about consolidating. lol
Ignorance is bliss right?
To me, that sums up the meaning of the eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The nakedness represents our innocence/vulnerability, so we as humans seek to hide it, in order to protect ourselves, from being hurt by others, especially those who have some perceived advantage over us. The garden was a safe space of ignorance. But it’s illusory, and so I’m not entirely convinced the serpent (representing wisdom, not just knowledge) did us a disservice. But you’d have to delve into hermetic kabbalah to get the whole story. I’ve only scratched the surface, and that’s over the last couple of years. Life has it’s demands.
Yes adam and eve are a good example
I had a colleague a few years ago, who wasn’t dumb. He’d question everything, often discussing things down to excruciating details. Like, you seriously couldn’t shut him up, with how much he was putting everything into question.
Except when it came to the bible. That was what he considered unquestionable truth.
One time, I felt like I kind of got through to him. We were discussing the Big Bang and whatnot, and I told him that I don’t believe that actually started the universe, which really caught him off-guard, because he thought all the science people were a big hivemind and no one’s allowed to disagree. I’m guessing, because that’s how he’s been taught about the bible, so he just assumed the enemy is taught the same way.
And yeah, I explained to him that I don’t believe it started things, that I don’t believe in creation (the fundamental concept as well as the non-evolution thingamabob), because things don’t just randomly start existing. When you produce a chair, that’s just some atoms rearranged from a tree, which is just some atoms rearranged from the ground and the air, which is rearranged from yet another place. That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don’t just pop into existence, ever.What’s also kind of interesting/funny, is that he did not actually have a terribly good understanding of the bible.
One time, I don’t know how we got to that topic, but I was like, wait, isn’t there a commandment that says you shouldn’t be using god’s name in vain? And at first he just said no, there’s not, to then start really heavily thinking when I didn’t back down. But yeah, I had to then look it up to confirm it, because he did not know his commandments.
That was his worst moment by far, but we had many bible debates, where I, with my shitty school knowledge and never having been interested in any of it, was telling him things he didn’t know.To my mind, the question is the same for evolutionists and creationists: where did the stuff come from that caused the big bang and where did God come from. And the answer is the same: it’s always been there. I agree about rearrangement of atoms. And also, Adam is atom but that’s a whole metaphysical discussion of kabbalah/quabala and I am doing this in between chores so I’m not particularly interested in opening that can of worms at this moment.
That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don’t just pop into existence, ever.
But they do! Not a classical scale, but on the quantum scale this literally happens all the time.
Hmm, I’m no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I’m finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it’s not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a “false vacuum”, whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I’d look into it some more.
I’d be very surprised if Quantum Fluctuations are pop-sci misinformation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Hmm, but that seems to be again that there’s actually fields there, rather than proper nothing. At the very least, I would still say that the universe already existed before the Big Bang, if there was fields spanning all over the place and they just needed quantum fluctuation to turn into something you can touch. Especially, because “touch” is still just an interaction with a field.
And I’m not trying to say that the phenomenon itself is pop-sci misinformation, but rather how it’s portrayed. They’ll write a title like “How Quantum Fluctuation Creates Something from Nothing”, which is technically something you could say, because “nothing” doesn’t have a sharp definition. But it’s also misleading as people will not think that “nothing” could also mean that there is actually still fields there. Instead, they will interpret it as proper nothing. And pop-sci journalists do that, because it brings in clicks, unfortunately.
There was a woman in my microbiology program who did not believe in evolution. We extracted dna in labs and put plasmides into ecoli and such. It was weird.
