Religion Is For Monkeys

Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Religion Is For Monkeys

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, "That's the way it's always been done around here."

And that, my friends, is how you end up with religion.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Technically, we are apes,

Technically, we are apes, not monkeys.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Technically, we are humans,

Technically, we are humans, not apes or monkeys.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Species: Sapiens Genus:

Species: Sapiens

Genus: Homo

Family: Hominidae

Order: Primates

Class: Mammalia

Phylum: Chordata

Kingdom: Animalia 

 

Apes, you see. Humans are a kind of ape. 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
I liked this analogy alot,

I liked this analogy alot, thanks for posting it.

 

If I were to credit you, could I use it? 


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Species: Sapiens

Genus: Homo

Family: Hominidae

Order: Primates

Class: Mammalia

Phylum: Chordata

Kingdom: Animalia 

Apes, you see. Humans are a kind of ape. 

Neat. What does that have to do with the topic?


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: I liked

Maragon wrote:

I liked this analogy alot, thanks for posting it.

 

If I were to credit you, could I use it? 

This is an old posting I found, I have no idea who wrote it. So, use it however you'd likeSmiling


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this example more

Isn't this example more appropriately a demonstration of the creation of a superstition? Religion is a bit more complex than just a simple superstition.

I will say though, I like the analogy.  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: Isn't this

jread wrote:

Isn't this example more appropriately a demonstration of the creation of a superstition? Religion is a bit more complex than just a simple superstition.

I will say though, I like the analogy.  

Well, more to the point it illustrates that believing anything based upon tradition isn't a very good reason for believing, and of course religion relies heavily on tradition - almost invariably, you believe what your parents believed, because your parents believed what their parents believed......

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Niedowiarek
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Of course, the theist may

Of course, the theist may argue that there was a reason in the first place, so we shouldn't change the "good old ways" even if we don't understand them.

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if this experiment

I wonder if this experiment was ever done??

If it hasn't it would be very interesting. Probably some ethical problems. It makes sense from a social learning perspective.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Definitely an interesting

Definitely an interesting idea.


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
This is very cute but if it

This is very cute but if it is a poor comparison to religion. There are two requirements for this experiment to work.

1) The reaction would have to enhance an instinct.

2) There would have to be an exterior presence playing the role of a manipulating God. Someone has to turn the water on and off for the response to be reinforced.

What the study is evaluating is a learned response. A learned response is one that mitigates or modifies an instinctive reaction. After all the original monkeys are removed the response becomes an action based on priori assumptions. Priori assumptions are those conclusions based on theory rather than experience without examination of evidence. In other words, the conviction that something is simply because it is.

People can alter their own programming but attitudes will still exists. If this study is allowed to progress alterations will appear in the priori assumption programming. If they didn't, we would still be in caves, eating what doesn't eating us first.

However, none of this negates that the reaction did need to take place and was started by an outside stimulus. -There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct to believe.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote:

Mjolnin wrote:
This is very cute but if it is a poor comparison to religion. There are two requirements for this experiment to work.

1) The reaction would have to enhance an instinct.

2) There would have to be an exterior presence playing the role of a manipulating God. Someone has to turn the water on and off for the response to be reinforced.

What the study is evaluating is a learned response. A learned response is one that mitigates or modifies an instinctive reaction. After all the original monkeys are removed the response becomes an action based on priori assumptions. Priori assumptions are those conclusions based on theory rather than experience without examination of evidence. In other words, the conviction that something is simply because it is.

People can alter their own programming but attitudes will still exists. If this study is allowed to progress alterations will appear in the priori assumption programming. If they didn't, we would still be in caves, eating what doesn't eating us first.

However, none of this negates that the reaction did need to take place and was started by an outside stimulus. -There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct to believe.

I disagree.

Point (1): The reaction would have to enhance an instinct.

The point of the experiment was to create a learned response, not an instinct. The only instinct that humans have (that I've learned) is to seek to nipple of the mother. Everything else is learned. There might be other human instincts that I haven't learned, but I'd venture they have nothing to do with religion.

Point (2):There would have to be an exterior presence playing the role of a manipulating God. Someone has to turn the water on and off for the response to be reinforced

I don't see a problem with this. Since we learn from the external environment, then all evidence can be viewed as subjective rather than instinctive.

Point (3):People can alter their own programming but attitudes will still exists.

 

I doubt this. Not only do we look to others for examples of behaviors to follow, we look at our own behaviors to figure out what we believe. I can provide social psychological proofs to enforce this assertion. I think I provided some documentation from my essay, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/7728

 Point (4):There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct to believe.

I think that was from left field. To believe in stupid stuff, you merely need someone to tell you stupid stuff. If a lot of people tell you stupid stuff, then, more than likely, you'll believe stupid stuff. There is no need for God or instinct to believe in religion.

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Debauchrist wrote:

Debauchrist wrote:

I disagree.

Point (1): The reaction would have to enhance an instinct.

The point of the experiment was to create a learned response, not an instinct. The only instinct that humans have (that I've learned) is to seek to nipple of the mother. Everything else is learned. There might be other human instincts that I haven't learned, but I'd venture they have nothing to do with religion.

Your experiment illustrates my contention as to why Homo Religiosus, or 'Religious Man' is sincerely 'less than human', or less than homo sapien, or 'thinking' man.

The one enduring quality over all others that defines humanity is the human ability to reason. It has been said throughout the ages by philosophers, even by the faith-based, that it is reason that separates humans from all other animals. The human ability to reason is what gives homo sapiens, or 'thinking man', their distinctive advantage over instinct ruling all other forms of life. Homo sapiens are the most dominant species because all other forms of life rely more on instinct than on reason to survive.

Other varieties of animal species also use reason with instinct to help them survive. Less intelligent primates or hominoids use varying levels of reason with instinct just like the Homo Religious species of hominid. Species of birds are even known to ‘reason’ conceptually. Crows have ‘learned’ to drop walnuts in cross walks, wait for 4-wheeled ‘nutcrackers’ to break the shell and then eat their meal only after the traffic light turns green.

However the human ability to reason is what predominantly defines humanity. Faith is the anti-thesis to reason, reality and truth. Faith is an act of mental destruction. Consistently engaging faith to determine reality, facts or truth results in a complete inability to think. Eventually, even when confronted with factual evidence against a faith based fallacious reality, the faith-based mind will become so dependent on its flawed beliefs, it will reject reality or any factural evidence opposing the faith based ‘faux’ reality. This is the clinical definition of psychosis. Clinical Psychosis is a severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. This is the level of clinical psychosis roughly 30% of all Americans exist in to relate to the world around them as Christian fundamentalists.

So what can be concluded from the multitudes of homo religiosus on earth relating to the world around them through faith? They are in fact less than human in definition and in action. The faith based can sincerely be defined as a less evolved species of hominoid than their reason-based, rational thinking homo sapien superiors… The faith based “believers” literally, by what defines humanity, are More than Ape but Less than Human

 Perhaps somewhat illustrating this point beyond Bush's already well known comparison to a chimp is a recent account of a ‘Wild-Eyed’, self-righteous Bush spouting off about Iraq who shocked TexAss friends by thumping his chest just like a chimp 3 times while repeating 'I am the president!'

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Debauchrist wrote:

Debauchrist wrote:

Point (1): The reaction would have to enhance an instinct.

The point of the experiment was to create a learned response, not an instinct. The only instinct that humans have (that I've learned) is to seek to nipple of the mother. Everything else is learned. There might be other human instincts that I haven't learned, but I'd venture they have nothing to do with religion.

Read closer--- You are not creating an instinct you are enhancing an instinct. That means it is already there you are just using it to teach the response.A learned response is one that mitigates or modifies an instinctive reaction”.

What you are doing here is defined with Evolutionary biology, instincts can be explained in terms of behaviors that favor survival. You have trained the monkey to associate discomfort with the use of the stairs. To survive his cage he must not use the stairs.

If you want to disregard Evolutionary biology your experiment still won’t work on Homosapiens because “from another science field” Sociologists argue that there are no human instincts because all drives can be overridden. So, people can not be trained, monkeys can be.

Debauchrist wrote:

Point (3):People can alter their own programming but attitudes will still exists.

I doubt this. Not only do we look to others for examples of behaviors to follow, we look at our own behaviors to figure out what we believe. I can provide social psychological proofs to enforce this assertion. I think I provided some documentation from my essay

Couldn't get to the link but I will try again

I don’t get your point because we agree kinda. Or is it my use of the word attitude? Attitudes, or unconscious beliefs are evaluations we make about objects, ideas, events, or other people. Behavior does not always reflect attitudes. However, attitudes do determine behavior in some situations:

Put your hand against an aquarium that holds a rattlesnake ready to strike. You know the glass will protect you but when the snake strikes you will still flinch. Why??? You can figure out what you believe from here.

Debauchrist wrote:

Point (4):There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct to believe.

I think that was from left field. To believe in stupid stuff, you merely need someone to tell you stupid stuff. If a lot of people tell you stupid stuff, then, more than likely, you'll believe stupid stuff. There is no need for God or instinct to believe in religion.

This is only from left field if you believe in God or that the experimet would work on people. The reponce would have to be re-taught everytime a new human would enter the cage. It would work on monkeys but eventually a human would go up the stairs. The responnce would end if the water was turned off. If the water was still on then the responce would be enforced and kept. So for this to work on religion -There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct.

[MOD UNEDIT - Attempted but unable to fix quoting]


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Has this experiment

Has this experiment actually been done? It would be good to have a source on this. It seems like a fairly likely hypothesis but it would be good to see some data nontheless.

 


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Has this experiment actually been done? It would be good to have a source on this. It seems like a fairly likely hypothesis but it would be good to see some data nontheless.

I agree with the hypothesis it is a logical assumption... it would probably work on monkeys.

Adnihilo wrote:

Your experiment illustrates my contention as to why Homo Religiosus, or 'Religious Man' is sincerely 'less than human', or less than homo sapien, or 'thinking' man… So what can be concluded from the multitudes of homo religiosus on earth relating to the world around them through faith? They are in fact less than human in definition and in action. The faith based can sincerely be defined as a less evolved species of hominoid than their reason-based, rational thinking homo sapien superiors…

 

I will admit to speading it thick but I am humbled by this one.

To be a reason-based, rational thinking Homo sapien superiors you would have to completely override all emotions and exterior stimuli…

Shall we call you Mr. Spoc?

There is truly nothing completely rational about the human race. You would need to devolve (if that is a word, if not I will keep it anyway) to the point below monkeys and develop all you belief traits from personall experience only. The first time you came to a body of water over your head the entire species would drown.

If loss of emotion is the next step… You are welcome to it, I am having too much fun with my emotions to give them up.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Has this experiment actually been done? It would be good to have a source on this. It seems like a fairly likely hypothesis but it would be good to see some data nontheless.

 

I heard of this experiment years ago - I think it may be real but can't be sure without more evidence (Question everything...the only way to be). As I recall it wasn't in regard to religion though, but rather just that belief and tradition can be taught and passed down and taken as valid without ever understanding why. This was to illustrate how some primates may be passing on information to their children and to gauge their social development, etc... how do they know to use sticks to get at ants, or use rocks to break things, etc...learned behavior by imitating their social group - fits incredibly well when you think about religion.

A similar example would be other superstitions, for example walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror. This is a social tradition that has been passed down in our culture - we have no scientific evidence what so ever to promote the idea that breaking mirrors leads to bad luck, infact the idea itself is proposterous, yet many people are afraid to walk under ladders or break mirrors. Religion is no different then any other superstition, but for a superstition to be promoted to religion it generally needs a lot of bulk and myth to go with it, where superstitions are smaller instances of the exact same mentality.

Don't balspheme god or you go to hell...don't walk under a ladder or you will have bad luck...sound familiar?

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: ...learned

Vorax wrote:

...learned behavior by imitating their social group - fits incredibly well when you think about religion...

A similar example would be other superstitions, for example walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror. This is a social tradition that has been passed down in our culture ...

 Religion is no different then any other superstition, but for a superstition to be promoted to religion it generally needs a lot of bulk and myth to go with it

It sounds nice enough but belief in a diety is not as simple as superstition. Although both are questioned only a superstition is considered void. Superstitions are passed down through a given culture but they are ussually unique to that culture. Uniqueness of today's cultures are considerably blurrier only because of current communication and travel technologies.

What seperates religion is they all stem from a basis of a belief in some diety. We classify religions as superstitions or myths by our own beliefs but they are constant though out most civilizations. I don't think walking under a ladder is.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote: Vorax

Mjolnin wrote:

Vorax wrote:

...learned behavior by imitating their social group - fits incredibly well when you think about religion...

A similar example would be other superstitions, for example walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror. This is a social tradition that has been passed down in our culture ...

Religion is no different then any other superstition, but for a superstition to be promoted to religion it generally needs a lot of bulk and myth to go with it

It sounds nice enough but belief in a diety is not as simple as superstition. Although both are questioned only a superstition is considered void. Superstitions are passed down through a given culture but they are ussually unique to that culture. Uniqueness of today's cultures are considerably blurrier only because of current communication and travel technologies.

What seperates religion is they all stem from a basis of a belief in some diety. We classify religions as superstitions or myths by our own beliefs but they are constant though out most civilizations. I don't think walking under a ladder is.

Walking under ladders may not be, but virtually all independant cultures developed superstitions - just as virtually all developed religion. 

The fact that all cultures that were out of communications with each other developed different religions indicates that religion is more likely superstition the a realization aobut the universe.  If there was a real god, multiple cultures should have come up with the same one independantly, but none did (unless you are someone else has an example).  

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote:   If there

Vorax wrote:

  If there was a real god, multiple cultures should have come up with the same one independantly, but none did (unless you are someone else has an example).  

It really doesn’t surprise me that different cultures view God in different ways. At least no more than two people working on identical research projects can have two different conclusions. Unfortunate innate being of man is often driven by ego and it isn't possible to have an ego and no opinions or attitudes. When we look at our minds honestly, we see that we have mixed feelings and multiple opinions about almost everything. I don’t see anything that can’t eventually be used as a force for separation.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote: Read

Mjolnin wrote:

Read closer--- You are not creating an instinct you are enhancing an instinct. That means it is already there you are just using it to teach the response.A learned response is one that mitigates or modifies an instinctive reaction”.

What you are doing here is defined with Evolutionary biology, instincts can be explained in terms of behaviors that favor survival. You have trained the monkey to associate discomfort with the use of the stairs. To survive his cage he must not use the stairs.

If you want to disregard Evolutionary biology your experiment still won’t work on Homosapiens because “from another science field” Sociologists argue that there are no human instincts because all drives can be overridden. So, people can not be trained, monkeys can be.

I suppose we have different definitions of instinct and learned response. An instinct has a pre-determined response to a specific stimuli. A learned response is simply a response that is learned. A learned response doesn't "enhance" an instinct, though, instinctual response can be used to for stimuli association (this is not an enhancement, it's an association).

Regardless of definitions of instinct and learned response, we often use social proof to figure out how to act, this is why the experiment would work on humans.

Mjolnin wrote:

Couldn't get to the link but I will try againI don’t get your point because we agree kinda. Or is it my use of the word attitude? Attitudes, or unconscious beliefs are evaluations we make about objects, ideas, events, or other people. Behavior does not always reflect attitudes. However, attitudes do determine behavior in some situations:

Put your hand against an aquarium that holds a rattlesnake ready to strike. You know the glass will protect you but when the snake strikes you will still flinch. Why??? You can figure out what you believe from here.

I thought it was from left field because it asserts that the experiment would work.

Mjolnin wrote:

This is only from left field if you believe in God or that the experimet would work on people. The reponce would have to be re-taught everytime a new human would enter the cage. It would work on monkeys but eventually a human would go up the stairs. The responnce would end if the water was turned off. If the water was still on then the responce would be enforced and kept. So for this to work on religion -There would have to be a God and we would already possess the instinct.

[MOD UNEDIT - Attempted but unable to fix quoting]

Moths having an instinct for a guidance system by starlight also means that they'll be flying into candle flames as well. It's a response/stimulus misfiring. People don't have an instinct for God, they probably just listened to their parents (most people have the same religion as their parents)... another response/stimulus misfiring.

Here's an excerpt from Influence Science and Practice, by Robert Cialdini, Professor of Psychology Arizona State University:

"In addition to the times when social evidence is deliberately faked, there is another time when the principle of social proof will regularly steer us wrong. In such an instance, an innocent, natural error will produce snowballing social proof that pushes us to an incorrect decision. The pluralistic ignorance phenomenon, in which everyone at an emergency sees no cause for alarm is one example of this process.

The best illustration I know, however, comes from Singapore, where a few years ago, for no good reason, customers of a local bank began drawing out their money in a frenzy. The run on this respected bank remained a mystery until much later, when researchers interviewing participants discovered its peculiar cause: An unexpected bus strike had created an abnormally large crowd waiting at the bus stop in front of the bank that day. Mistaking the gathering for a crush of of customers poised to withdraw their funds from a failing bank, passersby panicked and got in line to withdraw their deposits, which led more passersby to do the same. Soon after opening its doors, the bank was forced to close to prevent a complete crash

This account provides certain insights into the way we respond to social proof. First, we seem to assume that if a lot of people are doing the same thing, they must know something we don't. Especially when we are uncertain, we are willing to place an enormous amount of trust in the collective knowledge of the crowd. Second, quite frequently the crowd is mistaken because its members are not acting on the basis of any superior information but are reacting, themselves, to the principle of social proof."

 

The experiment will work on humans, and, often, variations of this experiment work.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Religion is based on a

Religion is based on a variety of social factors, but two factors that contribute to the creation of religions are cognitive dissonance and social conformity. What's interesting about social conformity is that it actually causes us to see differently http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm

 


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry to take so long to

 Sorry to take so long to respond, work gets in the way.

 

“Religion is based on a variety of social factors, but two factors that contribute to the creation of religions are cognitive dissonance and social conformity” 

I do agree with this statement, But, and there is always a but, Social comformity is a strong force to many, look at the SUV market. I have a sister-in-law who lives in Atlanta Georgia, has 1 child and drives a Lincoln Navigator. She only has it because it is a social icon for her, why else would you need a monster 4 wheel drive in . The only problem when equating your hypothosis to humans is that not everyone in her neighborhood drives a Lincoln Navigator, even though they all could if wanted. 

The same goes for religions and our ability to think beyond false society realities. There are many different kinds of people within any society and there are no such things as one-size-fits-all in beliefs. I do not deny the influence of society; I don’t give it the control that this experiment is giving it when relating to humans. This discussion between us is proof that we do not follow a fixed society belief, which should not be mistaken for a forced society belief.

I do need a better understanding  for cognitive dissonance.  I don,t have any uncomfortable tension that may or may not come from having two conflicting thoughts when religion is the topic.

“People don't have an instinct for God, they probably just listened to their parents” 

I wish that was true. Just think how nice the home would be if your teenagers did what you said.

This is a copy from another tread dealing with human evolution... "Cognitive science and evolutionary biology are working towards a better understanding of inherent “belief in hope beyond reason”. The researchers tend to agree that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture and religious experience and practice is generated and structured largely by a few emotions that evolved for reasons not yet defined."

 Since human actions can not be called instinct because of our ability to override instinctive actions… You are right we do not have an instinct for God.

Our brain is just wired to look for God. 

 


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote:  Sorry to

Mjolnin wrote:

 Sorry to take so long to respond, work gets in the way.

 

“Religion is based on a variety of social factors, but two factors that contribute to the creation of religions are cognitive dissonance and social conformity” 

I do agree with this statement, But, and there is always a but, Social comformity is a strong force to many, look at the SUV market. I have a sister-in-law who lives in Atlanta Georgia, has 1 child and drives a Lincoln Navigator. She only has it because it is a social icon for her, why else would you need a monster 4 wheel drive in . The only problem when equating your hypothosis to humans is that not everyone in her neighborhood drives a Lincoln Navigator, even though they all could if wanted. 

The same goes for religions and our ability to think beyond false society realities. There are many different kinds of people within any society and there are no such things as one-size-fits-all in beliefs. I do not deny the influence of society; I don’t give it the control that this experiment is giving it when relating to humans. This discussion between us is proof that we do not follow a fixed society belief, which should not be mistaken for a forced society belief.

I do need a better understanding  for cognitive dissonance.  I don,t have any uncomfortable tension that may or may not come from having two conflicting thoughts when religion is the topic.

 

“People don't have an instinct for God, they probably just listened to their parents” 

I wish that was true. Just think how nice the home would be if your teenagers did what you said.

This is a copy from another tread dealing with human evolution... "Cognitive science and evolutionary biology are working towards a better understanding of inherent “belief in hope beyond reason”. The researchers tend to agree that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture and religious experience and practice is generated and structured largely by a few emotions that evolved for reasons not yet defined."

 Since human actions can not be called instinct because of our ability to override instinctive actions… You are right we do not have an instinct for God.

Our brain is just wired to look for God. 

 

You do bring up an interesting point that I've been trying to research. Try googling "God Module" and you'll find a couple interesting stories about brain wiring and religion. However, I found three unbiased stories (saying to reach no conclusion) and a bunch of biased stories saying that this disproves God or it proves God. My problem is that I can't find another website referencing the names of the scientists who conducted the study nor can I find a follow-up or even a confirmation of the study. Do you have any additional material relating to the God Module? I'm really dissapointed that information regarding this subject is difficult to find.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote: Sorry to

Mjolnin wrote:

Sorry to take so long to respond, work gets in the way.

 

“Religion is based on a variety of social factors, but two factors that contribute to the creation of religions are cognitive dissonance and social conformity”

I do agree with this statement, But, and there is always a but, Social comformity is a strong force to many, look at the SUV market. I have a sister-in-law who lives in Atlanta Georgia, has 1 child and drives a Lincoln Navigator. She only has it because it is a social icon for her, why else would you need a monster 4 wheel drive in . The only problem when equating your hypothosis to humans is that not everyone in her neighborhood drives a Lincoln Navigator, even though they all could if wanted.

The same goes for religions and our ability to think beyond false society realities. There are many different kinds of people within any society and there are no such things as one-size-fits-all in beliefs. I do not deny the influence of society; I don’t give it the control that this experiment is giving it when relating to humans. This discussion between us is proof that we do not follow a fixed society belief, which should not be mistaken for a forced society belief.

I do need a better understanding for cognitive dissonance. I don,t have any uncomfortable tension that may or may not come from having two conflicting thoughts when religion is the topic.

 

“People don't have an instinct for God, they probably just listened to their parents”

I wish that was true. Just think how nice the home would be if your teenagers did what you said.

This is a copy from another tread dealing with human evolution... "Cognitive science and evolutionary biology are working towards a better understanding of inherent “belief in hope beyond reason”. The researchers tend to agree that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture and religious experience and practice is generated and structured largely by a few emotions that evolved for reasons not yet defined."

Since human actions can not be called instinct because of our ability to override instinctive actions… You are right we do not have an instinct for God.

Our brain is just wired to look for God.

 

I just wanted to add to your comment about teenagers. While a teenager may seem rebellious, they are actually conformist. We initially taught them to accept social proof. They emulate what we do (look at behavior) and not what we say. When a child accepts this teaching, they apply social conformity to their peers. If you tell a teenager not to drink, they'll ignore if these two conditions are present 1) you drink yourself or 2)their peers are drinking. A person's peer is more like them than a parent. This even applies to five year olds. You can try to teach a five year old to swim, but if they contain a fear of drowning, they'll ignore what you're teaching. It's more effective to show them another five year old who can swim, they say "if he can do, then so can I."

I think teenage "rebelliousness" actually shows us what monsters we are and what type of heroes we can be.  


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Debauchrist wrote: I think

Debauchrist wrote:

I think teenage "rebelliousness" actually shows us what monsters we are and what type of heroes we can be.  

Damn, I like this. Can I use it?


RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Most of us have practiced

Most of us have practiced strange traditions without ever knowing why we're doing it. When we were kids our parents hid colored chicken eggs in the yard for us to find. Few of us ever asked, "Why are we doing this strange behavior?" We were taught early in life that hiding colored chicken eggs was a normal activity that everybody does at Eastertime. We automatically accepted this as rational. In fact, those who didn't hide colored chicken eggs were seen as abnormal.

 

In December we kill small evergreen trees and drag them into our homes. Most Americans do this. Almost no one knows why we do it.

 

What does the song "Jingle Bells" have to do with Christmas? Nothing. It's about winter. But if you sing it in January people will think you're insane.

 

We don't need an experiment with monkeys to see that humans practice traditions without ever questioning why we do it. We do it because that's the way it's always been done.

 

Imagine an alien who visits Earth at the end of October and observes us cutting faces into large orange vegetables. He might ask, "Why are you doing that?" Few of us would come up with an answer that made rational sense. We do it because it's always been done that way.

 

And that's why so many people believe that 2,000 years ago a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. Few question the irrationality of this. Why should they? Everybody else believes it. So it must be true. Besides, it's always been done that way.

 

 

 

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Mjolnin wrote: Debauchrist

Mjolnin wrote:
Debauchrist wrote:

I think teenage "rebelliousness" actually shows us what monsters we are and what type of heroes we can be.

Damn, I like this. Can I use it?

Of course you can use it, however be careful. The point of the sentence is poetry, not to prove any fact. My area of study is mainly social psychology, not developmental psychology... I could be emperically wrong. I like to think that I'm not, but reality doesn't care what I think nor does it care... ah, more poetrySmiling 


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Debauchrist wrote: Mjolnin

Debauchrist wrote:
Mjolnin wrote:
Debauchrist wrote:

I think teenage "rebelliousness" actually shows us what monsters we are and what type of heroes we can be.

Damn, I like this. Can I use it?

Of course you can use it, however be careful. The point of the sentence is poetry, not to prove any fact. My area of study is mainly social psychology, not developmental psychology... I could be emperically wrong. I like to think that I'm not, but reality doesn't care what I think nor does it care... ah, more poetrySmiling

Nevermind, that wasn't poetry, that was just bad grammar. 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
You hit the nail on the

You hit the nail on the head Rickrebel.

If a christian found out he/she was the only person on the planet to believe christ rose from the dead, he/she would undoubtedly (if they are a truly rational people) question their own sanity, but because so many others suffer from the same delusion, they question the sanity or knowledge of those who don't believe the same.

Sanity and reasonable knowledge is completely relative to the society you live in:

- You were once thought to be sane and educated if you thought the world was flat.

- You were once thought to be sane and educated if you beileved evil spirits are what make people sick.

- You were once thought to be sane and educated sane if you believed humans could never possibly go into space.

- You were once thought to be sane and educated if you believed a man rose from the dead after three days (wooops...that one is still working its way out of social intellect... give it some more time)

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
RickRebel wrote: Most of

RickRebel wrote:

Most of us have practiced strange traditions without ever knowing why we're doing it. When we were kids our parents hid colored chicken eggs in the yard for us to find. Few of us ever asked, "Why are we doing this strange behavior?" We were taught early in life that hiding colored chicken eggs was a normal activity that everybody does at Eastertime. We automatically accepted this as rational. In fact, those who didn't hide colored chicken eggs were seen as abnormal.

 

In December we kill small evergreen trees and drag them into our homes. Most Americans do this. Almost no one knows why we do it.

 

What does the song "Jingle Bells" have to do with Christmas? Nothing. It's about winter. But if you sing it in January people will think you're insane.

 

We don't need an experiment with monkeys to see that humans practice traditions without ever questioning why we do it. We do it because that's the way it's always been done.

 

Imagine an alien who visits Earth at the end of October and observes us cutting faces into large orange vegetables. He might ask, "Why are you doing that?" Few of us would come up with an answer that made rational sense. We do it because it's always been done that way.

 

And that's why so many people believe that 2,000 years ago a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. Few question the irrationality of this. Why should they? Everybody else believes it. So it must be true. Besides, it's always been done that way.

 

 

 

 While I agree with your points, I must digress from "few question the irrationality of this". When questioning any person about their faith, I've found that they have thought a lot about what they believe. Because of the complex world we live in, they believe in the unreasonable. Jesus must have existed because it makes their world better (the conclusion is illogical, but it is not devoid of debate).

I don't think religion is indicative of humanity's inability to question, its a result of our creativity. We can create any fantasy and turn it into a religion, ie Battlefield Earth -> Scientology. If you negate religion, you find that the majority of theists and atheists think alike, there's almost no reason to discriminate between the two.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
this is off the progress of

this is off the progress of conversation but in reply to the original post. i mean it nothing more than for comical reference and to arouse thought.

------------- - - -------------

lets say you take three humans and put them in a cage. put a ladder in the middle with $100 dollar bill at the top.

say rationally they decide that they would "paper, rock, scissors" till one comes out as the ultimate winner. while he climbs the ladder a scientist comes in with a taser and shocks the other two guys.

they would maybe decide to take turns on getting the money or just decide not to go for it at all. maybe the person getting the money would be nice enough to split it with the two that got shocked. one thing is for sure the two not getting the money isn't going to be happy at the one that gets the money.

lets say you take one human out of the cage and replace it with a new human. as soon as he gets in there he sees the money and attempts to get it... he is then tackled by the other two.

how long do you actually think that could happen with out someone questioning; why is that money up there, why did you just tackle me and what in the world am i doing in this cage?

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I was going to retell the

I was going to retell the old story about why one woman always cut the ends off a ham before baking it.  I wanted to be sure I told it correctly so I Googled it and found a wonderful collection of teeny stories like this at Snope.com.

http://www.snopes.com/weddings/newlywed/secret.asp

I especially liked the one about thawing the turkey.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
that is a fun and simple

that is a fun and simple story, Susan... i love it.

...wonder if everyone is born with the same sized pan!! j/k lol

thank you for sharing

 

EDIT: LOL.. okay i just woke up, i changed  "that is a fun and simple Susan" and added "story"!! Smiling

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote: that is a

sapphen wrote:

that is a fun and simple story, Susan... i love it.

...wonder if everyone is born with the same sized pan!! j/k lol

thank you for sharing

 

EDIT: LOL.. okay i just woke up, i changed "that is a fun and simple Susan" and added "story"!! Smiling

Sapphen, I think you were right the first time.  Laughing out loud

By the way, I really appreciate how you document your edits.  It helps a great deal, especially for one who is simple from time to time.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
 although slighty amuzing

Smiling

 although slighty amuzing mishap... i want you to know that i think that you are far more than simple.

i have appricated you comments. you seem to look for beauty in things and that can be a rare trait.  from what i hear in you, your words give encouragement to a lot of people around you.

keep smiling and thank you agian Susan! 

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.