Religious Beliefs Processed by the Brain...

[Elliot Kane]

Ah, thanks, Lews!

So my idea of what it meant was not quite right. On the other hand, Zee is still clearly wrong to accuse me of it, as my own totally unequivocal statements on the matter were made before knowing about the study, not after.

On the other hand, my accusing HER of hindsight bias is just as wrong. She just didn't gather enough information before making a decision on whether I was guilty of hindsight bias or not.

Grand confusion thus reigned throughout ;D

[Flix]

I think she got it right. You made general statements that were somewhat related to the study, then upon reading the study, you say, 'aha! Just like I said all along'


Somewhat similar ideas(arguably)------->study-------->"I predicted same results"

It doesn't mean you changed your mind or never mentioned it before, it means you had an idea, and now that proof comes along, you 'knew' it all along....It's more subtle (hence 'bias') than just flip-flopping. It's an assertion of your 'rightness' that might come off as arrogant to some perhaps?

[Elliot Kane]

Um... Flix... Surely if I had the idea then that means I DID know it? Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

[Flix]

You know all your ideas are true? Wow, to have that kind of certainty....

Example:
The sky is grey so I think it might rain. It rains. I knew it would rain. Didn't I say so because of reasons x, y, and z?

The sky is grey so I think it might rain. It doesn't rain. Meaningless coincidence. Ignored.

[Elliot Kane]

Aaaah! I see we have a misunderstanding! Do I KNOW all my ideas are true? Of course not! They pass the 'reasonable' test, but that's all. I believe there is a strong probability that they are true, but beyond that, I cannot say.

To borrow your raincloud analogy: if you see cumulo-nimbus clouds building up into the familiar thunderhead formation, you can say there's a high probability of rain, right? You might be wrong, but the chances are you'll be right.

Well, depending on which specific theory of mine we're talking about, the cumulo-nimbus is built to a greater or lesser extent.

I never anywhere said I could PROVE any of it in the kind of mathematics-specific detail that would satisfy a scientist.

But if someone else comes up with the same ideas as me and then proves them scientifically, that in no way negates the fact that I came up with the same idea, does it?

That's MY position. And I just found it funny that you posted that so soon after my own article that described the secular & religious mindsets.

[Flix]

If you remember, my strong impression was (and is) that your article highlights and is focused on the differences in the minds of the secular and the religious. Thus, I posted this study as something of a response ('whaddaya know, they're pretty darn alike after all').

That's why it seemed disingenuous for you to simply say, "got there first." I couldn't give a rip about hindsight bias definitions. I only joined in with Fug because you seemed to be genuinely misunderstanding what she was accusing you of, not pretending to be dense.

[Elliot Kane]

I think you genuinely misunderstand my original article, Flix. The whole point was to highlight that both types of people are operating from very different sets of 'facts', which is why they fail to understand each other so often. I was obviously far less clear in conveying that than I had thought.

If you go back and read my article again, I suspect you will see I am right in saying that this study reinforces what I said rather than contradicting it.

[Flix]

I've read it plenty. But I'll read it again, and I'll do a full blown textual analysis if that what it takes to get you to admit that article is about differences in thinking. But first I need a little nap, been awake far too long.

[Elliot Kane]

Of course it's about differences in thinking...

I don't think there's any way we'll get through this impasse. I'm reading what I wrote in one way and you're reading it in another entirely. As long as we are both convinced we are correct - which seems to be the case - any further debate on the point will simply lead nowhere.

There seems to be far more room for misunderstanding than I imagined, though, and assuming Zee read my original article, too, it's clear she just came to the same conclusion as you did.

How utterly depressing for me...

But on the bright side, at least we got the web of misunderstandings untangled somewhat

[fughawzi]

I did read it.

Eh, I have not slept at all so I may not even be able to post what I wanted to. I'm going to read the actual study because I do not remotely trust media outlets to accurately describe the material. The fact that they say it governs your sense of self! I understand where you're coming from, Elliot, as some things mentioned in the article do show a lot of similarities to what you wrote. I'm going to see how it compares to the actual study and get back to you.

I find studies that use fMRI technology especially fascinating! Ahh, so much fun! Believers and non-believers go through the same mental processes when dealing belief and disbelief. I think this is what Flix is getting at? That no matter the belief system, the brain handles how you feel about it the same way, so they aren't so different?

[Elliot Kane]

Thanks, Zee

And yes - the fact that they have the exact same first step of 'This Is Fact' is the source of the difference and the misunderstanding between Religious & Secular thinkers. Flix sees it as a fundamental similarity, I see it as the ultimate source of every difference. that's where my misunderstanding with him lies, I think.

[Gimpel]

pls get the taylor swift out of 'ere, out our our sigh, tyvm.

[Gimpel]

"out 'f our sight", i honestly meant.

[Gimpel]

well, bye! I don't know what's going on. Uhh, General Section? Sounds terrible, but i might check it out who knows. An' I like to jump in on something i happen to chance upon, maybe a word to begin with. Do you call that 'random'? An' i today i saw an article regarding Decision-making! everything to do with the brain. It's off of Readers' Digest 2007 issue.

[Elliot Kane]

'Random'? I more call it 'Normal for Chaos' ;D

Also - Taylor stays Though I reserve the right to shift her out any time I like! ;D

[Flix]

You know EK I had a big ole post typed up but I don't want to bum you out anymore. I can at least show you why I read it the way I did.

So it really boils down to this:

I."The main cause of confusion arises from one single fact: despite any seeming similarity in thought processes, the religious and the secular mind each approach any given situation from fundamentally different starting points."

"Seeming similarity" implies that the similarities in thought processes are only superficial, or rendered insignificant by the vastly different approaches taken by either side.

But here's the telling part:

"To the religious person, the existence of their deity/ies is an incontrovertible fact."

"To a secular person, something only becomes incontrovertible fact if proven to be so by science or reason."

Your "first step" isn't the first step IMO. Let's just assume that even though elsewhere in the article you said the two use completely different rules of logic, that this isn't a difference in handling beliefs. Still, the secular thinker has a process by which he accepts and believes facts as incontrovertible: reason and science.

How do the religious thinkers arrive at the conclusion that the their deity is incontrovertible fact? Emotional reasons? Rapture or actual spiritual experience of the Divine? Logical arguments? Is it just 'obvious,' plain as the eye can see? Is it unquestioned belief that was taught from childhood?

You focus on how the two sides apply stage 1 believed facts to the world and their lives, and the disconnect between how the two sides do it. I'm more interested in how the two sides get to stage 1 - that is, why they accept the certain really big ideas as 'facts' to begin with. Your article, on a really deep reading, simply leaves that out, to focus on other things. I know how the secular mind accepts facts. The must make logical sense, they must satisfy the reason. But the religious thinker? That's the difference I've been maintaining exists between the way the two accept things as true. It's not just "God exists" and now everything must fit to that. I just sense there's something else going on in those minds, something spiritual, for lack of a better word.

[Elliot Kane]

Oh, I never intended to explain Step Zero with that article. Just show how the two sets of 'facts' created misunderstanding and conflict between two types of people who frequently miscommunicate because each believes their own starting point is SO obvious that the other must see it.

I'm not sure I've ever addressed 'why religious people are religious' or 'why non-religious people are non-religious'. The reason for that is that there are too many variables.

There is no single 'Faith Instigation', if you like, any more than every Atheist is Atheist for the same reason.

The causes for any religious position can be logical, emotional, social or convenience-based.

Someone who is beaten on by the world enough may turn to religion as a crutch, or turn away from it saying 'no deity would allow this, so there are no gods!'

Someone who studies the universe and sees all the patterns that flow through it may see it as evidence that humans see patterns everywhere, or as evidence of the divine plan. Can such perfect Order really come from random Chaos? Or is it all just humanity pretending to be important so we don't feel so small?

Socially, one may find all one's friends hold similar beliefs and because one has no strong opinion and we ARE very much social creatures, one's religious position may shift to match the society in which we live.

Convenience-based simply means that we wish to do things and a certain religious position allows them, whilst others forbid those things, so we adopt a religious position of convenience, as it were.

Then there is epiphany - the stunning revelation that a certain religious position IS correct! This is usually preceded by a period of seeking for 'The Truth' and rather like suddenly finding the last piece of a jigsaw.

All those things are known to every faith, and I'm sure familiar to you as an Atheist. They are all causes. In every case, the specific effect is down to the individual in question.

It's part of the irony of humanity that the exact same thing that made you an Atheist probably made someone else Agnostic, a third person Christian, a fourth Muslim... You get the idea

(And of course anyone raised in a belief who does not question it will always hold that belief. but that goes without saying, right?

People are not simple. If you push Button A, you don't always get Response B. Chances are you get a whole response range, as here

[Flix]

I agree. I might actually want to call you arrogant (or at least too ambitious) if you HAD attempted to explain all those myriad reasons with an article.

I think there may be lines to be drawn some day in the future as we continue to understand psychology, beliefs, and faith. That is, lines that delineate tendencies to believe for emotional reasons, or the tendencies to experience divine revelation or mystical experiences, for example. It can't be only external events and coincidences, as you noted when you said the exact same circumstances can elicit belief or rejection, depending on the person.

But whether from external influences or from brain chemistry/physiology, or a mix of the two, (or even the actual hand of the divine coming down to touch someone) I want to understand how and why people accept these things. I have a nagging intuition that it's different, and not simply that everything is faith, secular or religious, just with different focuses. I may be wrong, as the study I posted suggests. But I can also imagine that we've barely scratched the surface - remember how in the study, subjects experiences a delay or hesitation before answering regarding religious beliefs? Even though the same part of the brain was being called, maybe that delay is actually significant. Some other part of the brain being called into play, or something else entirely perhaps.

[Elliot Kane]

I think drawing lines is dangerous. We forget that people are individuals at our peril. We are the sum not just of our experiences, but even moreso of how we interpret those experiences and react to them.

The interesting thing is that while it is possible to create guides to all manner of human behaviour, any given human may not fit the response patterns that may broadly be defined as 'normal'.

[janggut]

because there is no such thing as normal?