20
   

Why do we deliberately fool ourselves?

 
 
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2014 11:41 pm
Is it just me or can anyone else see the glaring contradictions and absurdities of mainstream religion? Why do apparently intelligent people (on paper at least) believe in things that they don't have the slightest shred of evidence for? In his book 'The Beginning of All knowing' Emet Ambur points out exactly what is wrong with religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and islam. Actually these things should be obvious to any intelligent person who hasn't been brainwashed from birth. So why is it only a minority who can see it? Do we actually choose to delude ourselves?
 
fresco
 
  5  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 01:48 am
@coincidence,
"Choice"doesn't come into it. Both religious concepts and concepts of "self" are co-acquired through strong social forces endemic in our common language. To argue for a transcendent or independent "self" which can objectively assess "evidence" is no more rational than to argue for a transcendent "deity". Atheism can only be justified by the catalytic status of religion in promoting social pernicious, not by appeal to logic.
usery
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 01:57 am
@fresco,

Aren't appeals to logic the main way that atheism is justified?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 02:08 am
@usery,
Yes. And that is why they fail in the face of"social reality". What we call "logic" has well established limitations (following developments in physics and mathematics). The psychologist Piaget pointed out that "logical thought" is merely one product of the maturation process in humans and (not all get to that stage). Logic is "what works" for in limited contexts. For many, religion is "what works" to justify their existence and their idea of their self-integrity.
0 Replies
 
coincidence
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 11:46 am
@fresco,
I agree with you. Choice is dependent on so-called free will, which is a delusion. When I asked these same questions on the website known as 'spiritualforums.com' I was permanently banned from the website. What does this indicate to you?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 01:24 pm
@coincidence,
Well regarding the "banning" I suppose each club is entitled to set its own rules.

As far as "choice" and "free will"is concerned, I think they are useful and possibly essential concepts in particular social contexts such as those concerned with "culpability" in cases of social deviance. The problem is that we look for universal statements as to whether "free will" exists or not. But as the pragmatists (such as James and Rorty) might say any concept always has only limited functionality.

In general, the annals of this forum will show that I have identified a key concept which is often excluded from relativity discussions as that of "existence" itself. In that sense I hold that "God" certainly "exists" for "a believer". Indeed they are co-existent and co-extensive. Similarly, "God" does "not exist" for "an atheist" since the latter is defined by and is co-extensive with the lack of functionality and/or negativity of the God concept. To claim absolute existence rather than relative functional existence is itself a quasi- religious claim.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 02:57 pm
@coincidence,
Quote:
When I asked these same questions on the website known as 'spiritualforums.com' I was permanently banned from the website. What does this indicate to you?
I should imagine that it says that the way you phrase your statement is highly insulting to the people on that forum...while here, it is not.

Rationality isn't everything (and in case you jump to the 'obvious' conclusion - no, I'm not religious).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 03:29 pm
Quote:
So why is it only a minority who can see it?


Sounds to me as though you are patting yourself on the back here. You do consider yourself to be part of that "minority", right?

And what if, accidentally, they are correct in their "absurd beliefs?"

Are you suggesting there is no chance there are gods...or are you just railing against religion?
0 Replies
 
coincidence
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 05:54 pm
I would like to apologize if the wording i used seems as if I am 'railing' against religion, that is certainly not my intention. I am not an atheist, to call yourself an atheist is to suggest that something exists that you don't believe in and also suggests that there is some kind of permanent entity that believes or doesn't believe. I would describe myself as 'religious' but not in the sense of believing in any mainstream religion. I believe in what some people refer to as 'fate' (for want of a better word). I have no choice but to believe this because I see it working in my life in what some people refer to as coincidence, synchronicity etc. (no word exists to explain it). If I did not witness the activity of this force I would not believe in it. I definitely would not attach any foolish concepts such as 'God' to this (the tyrannical accountant, bearded hippy who loves me etc.). It's just the way things happen. I don't try to understand or analyse it. I just go with it. I don't wish to criticise religious people or atheists, but the world might be a better place if people didn't try to impose ideas on others which they have no proof for. We would certainly have a lot less wars. It is good to see the level of intelligent discussion on this site. I despair when I look at some of the other forums.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 07:56 pm
@coincidence,
coincidence wrote:
Is it just me or can anyone else see the glaring contradictions and absurdities of mainstream religion?

It's not just you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2014 10:03 pm
@coincidence,
coincidence wrote:
Is it just me or can anyone else see the glaring contradictions and absurdities of mainstream religion? Why do apparently intelligent people (on paper at least) believe in things that they don't have the slightest shred of evidence for? In his book 'The Beginning of All knowing' Emet Ambur points out exactly what is wrong with religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and islam. Actually these things should be obvious to any intelligent person who hasn't been brainwashed from birth. So why is it only a minority who can see it? Do we actually choose to delude ourselves?

Because they have a motive not to see them. Religion tells them what they want to hear - that they won't really die and that most of their enemies will be punished.
0 Replies
 
usery
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2014 12:43 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Atheism can only be justified by the catalytic status of religion in promoting social pernicious, not by appeal to logic.


Would you please justify atheism, "by the catalytic status of religion in promoting social pernicious" (sic) ?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2014 12:51 am
Your question is malformed through ignorance. The irreligious are exactly as delusional as the religious, the conforming to the will of the Ego has nothing to do with religion.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2014 01:23 am
@usery,
(sorry about typo...social perniciousness)

If you are looking for depth of argument, you might consider further that what I see as the key question....that of the nature of "existence" itself....pre-empts all discussion of "logic" or "evidence". If we assume (like Kant) that we have no direct access to any "external reality" we surely surely come to the phenomenological position that such "a reality" is at best a cognitive construction acquired through that interactive behavior which human's call "language". Further, we can argue that is the abstract persistence of "words" rather than the known dynamic flux of physical entities which serves our psychological requirement of a stable "world" relative to our human activities of planning and prediction. When you think about it, today's "tree in the yard" is only the same as yesterday's "tree in the yard" by virtue of its continued functionality denoted by the word "tree". In essence that "tree" is physically/biologically changing all the time. What persists is merely what functionally matters to particular human interlocutors. And what can be argued for the word/concept "tree" can be argued for "rock" or"self" or "God". Their existential status is as temporary as the value of tokens of monetary currency like dollar bills. And that value is determined by social functionality nothing more. Of course deists will tend to counter this by evoking a nebulousexceptional permanence to the status of their "God" but this is merely equivalent to a faith in "the Gold Standard".

This re-focusing of philosophical questions about ontology towards linguistic issues ( what Philosophers have called Die Kehre ...the turn) comes from the understanding that (post the rise of psychology) language does not so much represent "reality" as construct it. Those interested might refer to Rorty (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature) as a seminal work.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2014 02:07 am
@usery,
As for the social justification of atheism, what I call "my self which is evoked by that word" points to
1. the history of religion as a crude rationalization of the tribalism which we inherited from primates. as exemplified by historical and current conflicts
2. the opiate nature of religion as best a psychological palliative and at worst a justification for inhumanity. (Ref: Sam Harris)
3. the schizophrenogenic nature of religion as a self persistent cognitive virus acquired through socialization.

However, I am at the same time aware of the fact that such an analysis is both beyond the understanding of "the average man" who is attempting to to establish a meaning for his own existence, and also not in the interests of social hierarchies. In short, I see religion in general as the price humans are doomed to pay for their cognitive pre-occupation with prediction, control and "meaning". But this knowledge does not stop me from getting atheistically angry in the security queues at airports.

In short religion may be psychologically useful to many, but ultimately tends to be sociologically pernicious at the macro-level.
0 Replies
 
room109
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 03:30 am
@coincidence,
to safeguard the ego.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 05:12 pm
@coincidence,
Let's not be naive here.
It is a fool who cherry picks his evidence to support his argument, claiming non-existence of contrary evidence regardless of who ends up in the right. Rather if we are smart, we each one examine all of the evidence presented, and we choose to believe that which convinces us most.

Preconceived bias adds a gradient relative to ignorance, only the fool sets it at 90 degrees.

both the atheist and the theist alike can be as foolish as the other.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:41 pm
@Smileyrius,
Quote:
It is a fool who cherry picks his evidence to support his argument
By this definition, 99.9% of people are fools...and I say 99.9% only because there is always exceptions in humanity - but I've never met anyone who doesn't do this to some degree. I'm also fairly certain psychologists have found the human mind to be wired this way - to avoid conflicts that make it uncomfortable or some such.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:03 am
Could be related to the Certainty Bias.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:13 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
It is a fool who cherry picks his evidence to support his argument
By this definition, 99.9% of people are fools...and I say 99.9% only because there is always exceptions in humanity - but I've never met anyone who doesn't do this to some degree. I'm also fairly certain psychologists have found the human mind to be wired this way - to avoid conflicts that make it uncomfortable or some such.
so you are saying that 99.9% believe what they want to believe. The number is indeed bad, but I would put it around 95%, not so bad.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do we deliberately fool ourselves?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2018 at 12:41:43