Is the idea of god innate?

[Kyriakos]

Descartes thought it was, although his reasoning was circular.
Personally i think it is, although at the same time i do not regard this as proof that god exists, at any rate not as something in the external world.

But it is interesting that everyone can have some notion of a god, and then so seldom do people wonder if their particular notion has much to do with that of the next person. It would seem to me that it is highly likely that each one has something very different, and thus religious discussions re based on a wrong standing point, that accroding to which the members of the discussion actually refer to the same, or at least an analogous, thing.

[andrewoberg]

Interesting topic. The fact that religion has thrived since the dawn of culture in things like funeral services, has been refined, defined, and codified in countless places and in countless ways, and then has even been fought over in very bloody wars that have lasted decades or even centuries, certainly seems to give credence to the idea that we are somehow evolutionary inclined towards a belief system. The real challenge though, in my opinion, is for all of us to be okay with that and stop trying to shove our personal beliefs down other people's throats.

[Paulclem]

Descartes thought it was, although his reasoning was circular.
Personally i think it is, although at the same time i do not regard this as proof that god exists, at any rate not as something in the external world.

But it is interesting that everyone can have some notion of a god, and then so seldom do people wonder if their particular notion has much to do with that of the next person. It would seem to me that it is highly likely that each one has something very different, and thus religious discussions re based on a wrong standing point, that accroding to which the members of the discussion actually refer to the same, or at least an analogous, thing.

There are 1.2-1.6 Billion Buddhists, (Googled), who do not hold the idea of a creator God in a supreme ultimate sense. This challenges the idea that it is innate.

Incidentally I like Thessaloniki - I remember the streets lined with flowering trees and cafes, and a statue of Alexander.

[blazeofglory]

Interesting topic. The fact that religion has thrived since the dawn of culture in things like funeral services, has been refined, defined, and codified in countless places and in countless ways, and then has even been fought over in very bloody wars that have lasted decades or even centuries, certainly seems to give credence to the idea that we are somehow evolutionary inclined towards a belief system. The real challenge though, in my opinion, is for all of us to be okay with that and stop trying to shove our personal beliefs down other people's throats.

I subscribe to your ideas about God, religios and yes we must let others have their own understanding of God not ours, and we more often than not trying to shove our personal beliefs down others' throats.

[Dodo25]

Paulclem is right, not all cultures have personified Gods. However, even in Buddhism, there is something 'intentional' about nature and existance in general. Especially the idea of karma seeks to give meaning to random happenings..

Evidence strongly suggests that there is a universal tendency in humans to believe in a 'creator', or at least a 'goal' or 'direction' of existance.

Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, I think it has a lot to do with the way our brains conceptualize nature. As self conscious animals with memories of the past and plans for the future, we have a strong self-interest. We look at nature through a 'how is x useful / harmful FOR ME'.

If you ask children questions like 'why is there rain', or 'why are there lions', the answers are often something along 'FOR the plants, so that they (and later WE can eat them)'or 'FOR goING to the zoo'.

I think this kind of thinking in terms of goals and purpose evolved, quasi as a by-product to higher forms of consciousness, because it is an easy way of conceptualization, and it emphasizes the importance of the organisms 'self' by creating a boundary between outside world and ME.

[NikolaiI]

There are 1.2-1.6 Billion Buddhists, (Googled), who do not hold the idea of a creator God in a supreme ultimate sense. This challenges the idea that it is innate.

Incidentally I like Thessaloniki - I remember the streets lined with flowering trees and cafes, and a statue of Alexander.

Try googling again. That number is way, way off. There are something like 376 million Buddhists in the world.

[andrewoberg]

Try googling again. That number is way, way off. There are something like 376 million Buddhists in the world.

I think Paul is referring to the populations of "Buddhist" countries. For example, I live in Japan, and nearly everyone here would say that they're Buddhist, but the percentage of people actually practicing the religion is incredibly small. Nonetheless, Buddhist ideas have absolutely soaked the cultural thinking of Japan, and can be seen in many places.

@Paul, that may be true of Buddhist teachings, but consider the number of people who effectively treat Buddha as a god. If pushed to claim him as a creator god, I suppose you're right that the number would be very few, but still he is widely worshiped and prayed to all over Asia.

[Kyriakos]

:)

For what its worth Descartes' "proof" of god's existence was that if god didnt exist then no one could be certain that his thoughts are ever correct, nomatter how sure he felt that they were correct. But the god, being benevolent, would not allow for such a deception.

I hope i remember the passage correctly, i studied it in university, but it does seem incredibly false and circular. Also it seems that the entirely opossite is true, that is: one can be entirely sure his thoughts are correct, but often they are incorrect.
Descrtes seems to have been arguing that being incorrect was the result of not trying hard to find the truth, but i do not agree with this either :)

[Dodo25]

I think Descartes 'proof' is quite interesting. Here's a paper about where and why Descartes went wrong.

http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/12.pdf

[OrphanPip]

The initial question is more difficult to answer than it would at first seem. First of all, we have to determine what we consider a god. Would tribal societies with animist spiritual worship believe in gods? What about cargo cults, or are early anthropomorphic religions like the ancient Greeks and Egyptians the first conception of gods.

The fact of the matter is that religions don't pop up spontaneously, they develop over millennia. Likely, there is a tendency in humanity to anthropomorphize, to attach human reasoning and expectations onto the natural world. The number of believers past and present further suggests there is a tendency towards credulity and accepting supernatural explanations. Belief in gods is certainly not innate, if a child is never exposed to the complex cultural ideas that circulate around religious beliefs, in all likelihood they won't develop a complex idea like an omniscient supernatural God (that takes years to come up with), but they may develop their own ways of rationalizing the unexplainable (to them at least).

[Kyriakos]

I remember having an idea of a god in elementary school, but do not recall when it formed. It was something that controlled everything, and i guess it served as something protecting me, since i was in alliance with it.

[Paulclem]

@Paul, that may be true of Buddhist teachings, but consider the number of people who effectively treat Buddha as a god. If pushed to claim him as a creator god, I suppose you're right that the number would be very few, but still he is widely worshiped and prayed to all over Asia.

I'm not sure that's true - though I don't speak any of the languages. The Buddhist teachings are quite clear that there is no creator God, and what may be viewed as worship and prayer by Westerners is actually reverence and respect as a the ultimate teacher.

A case in point is HH The Dalai Lama, referred in the West as a God-King. Whatever the translation issues,around this incorrect but not disrespectful term, would it be incorrect to assume that Tibetans weren't aware of the Buddhas teachings - and other Buddhists too? I don't think we can assume that.

[Paulclem]

Try googling again. That number is way, way off. There are something like 376 million Buddhists in the world.

I found that figure. Andrew probably explained it. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, but apologies.

Still a lot of non-theists though.

[andrewoberg]

I'm not sure that's true - though I don't speak any of the languages. The Buddhist teachings are quite clear that there is no creator God, and what may be viewed as worship and prayer by Westerners is actually reverence and respect as a the ultimate teacher.

A case in point is HH The Dalai Lama, referred in the West as a God-King. Whatever the translation issues,around this incorrect but not disrespectful term, would it be incorrect to assume that Tibetans weren't aware of the Buddhas teachings - and other Buddhists too? I don't think we can assume that.

Indeed, and I know what Buddhism teaches on the subject, but my point was that it tends to get messed up a bit in day to day life. Especially here in East Asia where extant ancestor worship got thrown into the mix. From an historical perspective, I would guess that many of the "Buddhist" practices among laity were later additions to try and fulfill spiritual/ritualistic needs that Buddhism's lofty philosophy didn't.

Please understand that this is not meant to say anything against Buddhism or its teachings.

[Paulclem]

Yes - point taken. I didn't think you were saying anything negative. I noted your comment in another thread about negative postings.:smile5:

[andrewoberg]

Yes - point taken. I didn't think you were saying anything negative. I noted your comment in another thread about negative postings.:smile5:

Did I say that?:smilewinkgrin:

[IceM]

If you suggest innate as forced upon us by parents who wish to avoid us being called heathens, then yes.

All children are atheists at birth.

[The Atheist]

Personally i think it is, although at the same time i do not regard this as proof that god exists, at any rate not as something in the external world.

I have yet to see any evidence that belief is innate.

Anecdotal evidence of a billion non-theists provides evidence to the contrary.


Evidence strongly suggests that there is a universal tendency in humans to believe in a 'creator', or at least a 'goal' or 'direction' of existance.

What evidence is this?

Can you supply some, please, because it's news to me.

The evidence I've seen seems to indicate all gods are human construct and none of the beliefs arrived spontaneously.


If you suggest innate as forced upon us by parents who wish to avoid us being called heathens, then yes.

All children are atheists at birth.

Bingo!

[Dodo25]

What evidence is this?
Can you supply some, please, because it's news to me.

The evidence I've seen seems to indicate all gods are human construct and none of the beliefs arrived spontaneously.


I never stated that they weren't human constructs. Let me also emphasize that there was a qualifying concession at the end of the sentence you quoted: "or at least a 'goal' or 'direction' of existance".

Of course I agree with IceM, without the religious memes around, one would hardly come up with a whole theistic worldview by oneself. However, what I meant is that there is only one single tribe / civilization in all of history that does not have a creation myth (the piraha, pretty interesting subject in itself by the way). So there must be an innate predisposition towards 'creation' and 'purpose' and whatever you want to call it.

[Technophile]

I believe in God and think that we are initially taught to believe, and that that belief becomes innate. That's how different cultures believe so strongly in their version of God. This also explains atheism and agnosticism.

[Dodo25]

I believe in God and think that we are initially taught to believe, and that that belief becomes innate. That's how different cultures believe so strongly in their version of God. This also explains atheism and agnosticism.

How does it explain atheism and agnosticism? Furthermore, how would it explaine non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Or how would it explain polytheistic religions like Greek mythology, where the gods are 'sinners' themselves? How does it explain the piraha, who don't have a creation myth?

[The Atheist]

However, what I meant is that there is only one single tribe / civilization in all of history that does not have a creation myth (the piraha, pretty interesting subject in itself by the way). So there must be an innate predisposition towards 'creation' and 'purpose' and whatever you want to call it.

I still can't agree with your position, because only the questions are common.

That humans have a common question about existence doesn't show anything innate beyond imagination. The fact that there is a similarity between the alleged answers is a lot more likely explained by the ignorance of those starting the myths than any predisposition to an answer.

What you're suggesting seems to be a kind of Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism).

It's only in the last few hundred years that humans have understood any part of existence, so the options were limited to creationism of some form or other.



I believe in God and think that we are initially taught to believe, and that that belief becomes innate.

That's a straight contradiction in terms. Learned behaviours are not innate and cannot be, by their very difinitions.


That's how different cultures believe so strongly in their version of God. This also explains atheism and agnosticism.

Can you expand on that, please, as it makes no sense to me.

[andrewoberg]

I think I posted my opinion on this on the first page. Re: Technophile's post, I'd like a more clearly defined argument, as well.

And btw, Atheist, your "Save the world with English" link appears to be broken.

[Paulclem]

Perhaps the only innate part is curiosity in humans and a desire to explain, but we are all culturally bound into acceptance or rejection of the cultural ideas around us, and so there's no way of testing this out.

Is the question another form of the nature/ nurture debate?

[Dodo25]

I still can't agree with your position, because only the questions are common.

That humans have a common question about existence doesn't show anything innate beyond imagination. The fact that there is a similarity between the alleged answers is a lot more likely explained by the ignorance of those starting the myths than any predisposition to an answer.

What you're suggesting seems to be a kind of Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism).

It's only in the last few hundred years that humans have understood any part of existence, so the options were limited to creationism of some form or other.

I'm not suggesting Lamarckism, not even epigenetics plays a role in what I've stated. All I'm saying is that we have an innate tendency to assume that the universe has a purpose. It's the 'same questions' you're talking about, or, more precisely, the fact that people tend to assume that all these questions must have meaningful answers. Methinks it's a rather trivial statement. In my first post in this thread, I tried to explain why this could be the case.

[The Atheist]

And btw, Atheist, your "Save the world with English" link appears to be broken.

?

I just tried and it worked - have another go.


I'm not suggesting Lamarckism, not even epigenetics plays a role in what I've stated. All I'm saying is that we have an innate tendency to assume that the universe has a purpose. It's the 'same questions' you're talking about, or, more precisely, the fact that people tend to assume that all these questions must have meaningful answers. Methinks it's a rather trivial statement. In my first post in this thread, I tried to explain why this could be the case.

Maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

Once an animal/human is able to start asking abstract questions, "where did I come from?" and "why am I here?" are the questions which arise.

You are saying it's an innate trait, while I feel those questions come up because there's nothing else to ask.

We don't ask "What colour is three?", we ask questions that appear make sense.

[Dodo25]

Maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

Once an animal/human is able to start asking abstract questions, "where did I come from?" and "why am I here?" are the questions which arise.

You are saying it's an innate trait, while I feel those questions come up because there's nothing else to ask.

We don't ask "What colour is three?", we ask questions that appear make sense.

I see your point. It's not just the questions though, it's the assumption that these questions have meaningful answers. You've stated earlier that this just reflects the ignorance of a culture without science and thus is to be expected. Maybe so..

I think it has everything to do with the Argument from Design and why it seems so appealing to us. Is it an innate tendency to assume organisms are designed, or is evolution just so good at mimicking design that it deceives any conscious agent? I think it is both (I actually do). There are mechanisms in the brain that attribute purpose to almost everything. Kids often anthropomorphize their toys, how far away is it to assume that there are nymphs in every tree (or are nymphs in rivers? I forgot..)? And of course it adds to the effect that nature has a striking resemblance to true design.

Anyway, I concede that 'innate tendency towards goal and purpose' might be a bit exagerated, 'innate tendency towards god' definitely is wrong.

An interesting question would be whether what I'm talking about is universal among all kinds of rational beings. Meaning, if there are intelligent aliens, do they have creation myths as well? I would think yes, and this I think is the problem you have with it, because it seems 'obvious' rather than an 'innate tendency'. I think it can be both.

I hope this all made sense somehow..

And as a side note, some people, with some form of autism, actually do think about numbers in color.

[The Atheist]

I see your point. It's not just the questions though, it's the assumption that these questions have meaningful answers.

I don't think anyone automatically assumes meaningful answers either. Kids come up with enough weirdness to show that.


You've stated earlier that this just reflects the ignorance of a culture without science and thus is to be expected. Maybe so..

Yes, we have an interesting evolution where our abstract thinking far outgrew our knowledge.


I think it has everything to do with the Argument from Design and why it seems so appealing to us. Is it an innate tendency to assume organisms are designed, or is evolution just so good at mimicking design that it deceives any conscious agent? I think it is both (I actually do). There are mechanisms in the brain that attribute purpose to almost everything. Kids often anthropomorphize their toys, how far away is it to assume that there are nymphs in every tree (or are nymphs in rivers? I forgot..)? And of course it adds to the effect that nature has a striking resemblance to true design.

While I think we just the resemblance because our designs mirror nature. If there were no birds, I bet whatever we flew around in wouldn't have wings. We are designed to recognise patterns, as are all animals, but I just don't see it being more complicated than that - until we introduce human constructs.

Pretty sure nymphs are in water. I have fly fishing nymphs anyway.

:D


An interesting question would be whether what I'm talking about is universal among all kinds of rational beings. Meaning, if there are intelligent aliens, do they have creation myths as well? I would think yes, and this I think is the problem you have with it, because it seems 'obvious' rather than an 'innate tendency'. I think it can be both.

I hope this all made sense somehow..

Well, we've already seen that creation myths aren't universal, so why would aliens have them?

Depends how far they've evolved, I guess.


And as a side note, some people, with some form of autism, actually do think about numbers in color.

So I believe. Letters as well - fascinating what the human mind can do to people.

[andrewoberg]

Yes, we have an interesting evolution where our abstract thinking far outgrew our knowledge.



This is an interesting point. What kind of natural selection pressures led us to arrive at this point? What is the evolutionary advantage of such a high degree of abstract thought? And when our knowledge catches up, how will we be different than we are now?

Btw, Atheist, the link is now working. Could have been a server problem on my end yesterday.

[andrewoberg]

Perhaps the only innate part is curiosity in humans and a desire to explain, but we are all culturally bound into acceptance or rejection of the cultural ideas around us, and so there's no way of testing this out.

Is the question another form of the nature/ nurture debate?

Nice summation. The middle path indeed!

[Dodo25]

This is an interesting point. What kind of natural selection pressures led us to arrive at this point? What is the evolutionary advantage of such a high degree of abstract thought? And when our knowledge catches up, how will we be different than we are now?


I would assume that it was largely due to sexual selection. Once you have a primitive form of language and culture through imitation, the ones best at imitating others and best at entertaining, problem-solving etc. become the leader of the social group, and higher status means higher chance to mate. The reason I think it's sexual selection is that brain size more than tripled within some 3 million years or so in human evolution. And if there is a runaway process with huge (even exponential) growth, the answer is very often sexual selection (i.e. the peacock's tail).

Another crucial factor is that once a certain threshhold was passed, our brains became inhabited by memes. Imagine them like a certain configuration of wiring and neuron activity (level of weightedness) in the brain that somehow convey 'meaning'. A meme is a unit of information, the foundation for culture. Gene is to evolution as meme is to culture so to speak. And because memes don't need to wait for the next generation but can spread through means of language, books or now radio and the internet, we have another runaway process: culture. Thus our knowledge grows exponentially.

This led to the fact that our knowledge actually 'did catch up'. We don't need myths anymore, we can give sound answers, or sketches of such answers, to most philosophical questions that philosophers have failed to answer for millennia.

[Paulclem]

And as a side note, some people, with some form of autism, actually do think about numbers in color.

Not just people with autism, and not just numbers/ colours. Sounds can be associated with smell and/ or colour too. It's called synesthesia. My wife has it with colour and words. The artist Kandinsky had it.

[andrewoberg]

Not just people with autism, and not just numbers/ colours. Sounds can be associated with smell and/ or colour too. It's called synesthesia. My wife has it with colour and words. The artist Kandinsky had it.

I love Kandinsky. Hearing that he had that condition will put a new light on his work for me.:smile5:

[Kyriakos]

I like this work by him, but not really the more abstract ones :)

http://www.wbsgallery.org.uk/wbsGallery_main/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=14887&g2_serialNumber=2

[mal4mac]

Buddhists believe in nirvana, Hegelians & Marxists believe in 'destiny', Schopenhauer and Kant believe in a transcendental reality, Plato believed in his Forms, even Epicureans believed in Gods (who, amusingly, lived far away and didn't mess with humans ...).

These are all God in different guises, a belief in some kind of ultimate "true world'. Is there a strong culture, besides modern liberal capitalism at its most thoughtful, that has no belief in a 'true world' ideal?

[Dodo25]

(...) even Epicureans believed in Gods (who, amusingly, lived far away and didn't mess with humans ...).


I think that was a forced move, not an actual belief of the Epicureans. Had they abandoned gods altogether, they would most likely have been persecuted. So they 'locked' them up into intermundium where they don't have any influence at all.

[Paulclem]

Buddhists believe in nirvana, Hegelians & Marxists believe in 'destiny', Schopenhauer and Kant believe in a transcendental reality, Plato believed in his Forms, even Epicureans believed in Gods (who, amusingly, lived far away and didn't mess with humans ...).

These are all God in different guises, a belief in some kind of ultimate "true world'. Is there a strong culture, besides modern liberal capitalism at its most thoughtful, that has no belief in a 'true world' ideal?

Buddhists believe in nirvana,

Buddhists don't believe in Nirvana in the same way that you detail others. There is a path taught by The Buddha and other terachers since. Whilst an ordinary person can't know about nirvana at that point, if the teachings have proved to be consistent with what is taught, then a practitioner can infer Nirvana. The main purpose of posing Nirvana as the aim of Buddhists is to clarify the goal.

Also - God by another name is a huge asumption about what Buddhists believe. Buddhists don't believe in a God = creator/ all powerful being.

[mal4mac]

Buddhists believe in nirvana,

Buddhists don't believe in Nirvana in the same way that you detail others... Whilst an ordinary person can't know about nirvana at that point, if the teachings have proved to be consistent with what is taught, then a practitioner can infer Nirvana.

Also - God by another name is a huge asumption about what Buddhists believe. Buddhists don't believe in a God = creator/ all powerful being.

I wasn't quite as clear as i might have been. Buddhists believe in a "true world" in exactly the same way as Christians believe in a "true world". In Buddhists case their "true world" is Nirvana, whereas the Christians' "true world" is God. You cannot infer Nirvana from any scientific process, you can only take a "leap of faith", exactly as Christians leap into a belief in the Trinity.

There is no rational reason, and (I would argue) no human reason for making such a leap, so why take such a chance?! If you put a blindfold on me, took me to some random place and told me to leap I'd say, "I'd rather not bother thank you".

"The Death of God and the Meaning of Life" by Julian Young is the origin of my "true world" designation, which is quite handy for attacking all unfounded beliefs. He uses it to show how a meaning of life might be determined without any true world belief, using the work of late Nietzsche, late Heidegger, Foucault and several others.

As Nirvana is attained after death or in mental state ("enlightenment") that anyone could pretend to have, then Nirvana is compatible with *anything* - as is God, Valhalla, a perfect state at the end of time, or any other "true world".

Why believe in such things?


I think that was a forced move, not an actual belief of the Epicureans...

Where is your evidence for this? Just because Epicureans had, or held to, some very good ideas doesn't mean they couldn't take a "leap of faith" into some daft ideas as well.

The dogmatic school of the ancient world were dogmatic because they held to the "scripture" laid down by their founder. As Epicurus mentioned the distant Gods, Epicureans *certainly* believed in them, due to their faith in the scriptures. Otherwise, they weren't Epicureans. If they accepted some Epicurean ideas, 'cause they seemed natural, but did not accept other ideas, then they were Skeptics, not Epicureans.

[Dodo25]

Where is your evidence for this? Just because Epicureans had, or held to, some very good ideas doesn't mean they couldn't take a "leap of faith" into some daft ideas as well.

The dogmatic school of the ancient world were dogmatic because they held to the "scripture" laid down by their founder. As Epicurus mentioned the distant Gods, Epicureans *certainly* believed in them, due to their faith in the scriptures. Otherwise, they weren't Epicureans. If they accepted some Epicurean ideas, 'cause they seemed natural, but did not accept other ideas, then they were Skeptics, not Epicureans.

I only said 'I believe', it wasn't a factual claim. All I'm saying is that there are very good reasons for it, so you can't just assume they dogmatically believed everything in their 'scripture'. Epicurus wasn't regarded as a prophet, so people would at least adopt a certain degree of skepticism. And if they didn't, it still doesn't tell us about the writer of these sriptures himself.

Socrates was executed for his views, this definitely showed that one should be careful at that time.

The reason why I think that the Gods were a 'forced move' is that they have no relevancy whatsoever in Epicurean physics. According to Epicureanism, everything consists of atoms and acts as determined by the laws of nature. Even gods consist of atoms, and they are locked away somewhere where they don't influence anything. The 'soul' itself consists of atoms, so there really isn't any reason to assume they 'needed' the gods.

[Paulclem]

I wasn't quite as clear as i might have been. Buddhists believe in a "true world" in exactly the same way as Christians believe in a "true world". In Buddhists case their "true world" is Nirvana, whereas the Christians' "true world" is God. You cannot infer Nirvana from any scientific process, you can only take a "leap of faith", exactly as Christians leap into a belief in the Trinity.

There is no rational reason, and (I would argue) no human reason for making such a leap, so why take such a chance?! If you put a blindfold on me, took me to some random place and told me to leap I'd say, "I'd rather not bother thank you".

"The Death of God and the Meaning of Life" by Julian Young is the origin of my "true world" designation, which is quite handy for attacking all unfounded beliefs. He uses it to show how a meaning of life might be determined without any true world belief, using the work of late Nietzsche, late Heidegger, Foucault and several others.

As Nirvana is attained after death or in mental state ("enlightenment") that anyone could pretend to have, then Nirvana is compatible with *anything* - as is God, Valhalla, a perfect state at the end of time, or any other "true world".

Why believe in such things?
.

In Buddhists case their "true world" is Nirvana, whereas the Christians' "true world" is God. You cannot infer Nirvana from any scientific process, you can only take a "leap of faith",

This is incorrect. It is quite feasable for an astronomer to infer the existence of a planet with the effects it has on the fields (? - I;m no physicist) around it. (I might be talking about Red Shift) in anticipation of its discovery. A similar logic is employed in Buddism with the exortation to find out fo yourself. In this sense it scientific - though on a subjctive/ experiential level. There is no leap of faith, but an informed faith which is different.

[Paulclem]

I wasn't quite as clear as i might have been. Buddhists believe in a "true world" in exactly the same way as Christians believe in a "true world". In Buddhists case their "true world" is Nirvana, whereas the Christians' "true world" is God. You cannot infer Nirvana from any scientific process, you can only take a "leap of faith", exactly as Christians leap into a belief in the Trinity.

There is no rational reason, and (I would argue) no human reason for making such a leap, so why take such a chance?! If you put a blindfold on me, took me to some random place and told me to leap I'd say, "I'd rather not bother thank you".

.

From the brief reviews I've read of the book, Young talks about European Buddhism - which I am unsure of, so I can't comment.

There is no rational reason, and (I would argue) no human reason for making such a leap, so why take such a chance?! If you put a blindfold on me, took me to some random place and told me to leap I'd say, "I'd rather not bother thank you".

This an incorrect analogy. The Buddha's path is fully described, and a guide is recommended for the serious practitioner. There are no such cliffs.

[Paulclem]

As Nirvana is attained after death or in mental state ("enlightenment") that anyone could pretend to have, then Nirvana is compatible with *anything* - as is God, Valhalla, a perfect state at the end of time, or any other "true world".

Why believe in such things?
.

You're right - anyone could pretend to be Enlightened, and they do unfortunately. That is why practitioners - (not believers) - are informed in the teachings to test the teacher. The Buddha's advice was to be a lamp to yourself.

You're also right to question why beleve in such things? The only person who can answer that is the practitioner having followed the instructions. The teachings are a guidebook to the path.

[Adolescent09]

I personally believe that religion and the "innate sense of God" are not always one and the same.

[mal4mac]

You're right - anyone could pretend to be Enlightened, and they do unfortunately. That is why practitioners - (not believers) - are informed in the teachings to test the teacher.


But the "testing" could mean a lifetime (or more :) ) spent doing meditation & the practices. If you, as many do, find thse practices, extremely tedious, are you prepared to face a lifetime of boredom in the slim chance that Buddhism might be right?

So the teachers capture the students (and their money!) for a lifetime. And even the highest teachers, those giving the highest meditation classes, might be unenlightened, they may even write books praised universally as "the best" and still give up Buddhism (read Paul Williams "The Unexpected Way").


The Buddha's path is fully described, and a guide is recommended for the serious practitioner. There are no such cliffs.

Would that be for Buddhist, now Catholic, Paul Williams' guide to Mahayana Buddhism? Or the works of alcoholic and dangerous driver Chogyam Trungpa? Or Ricard, a former scientist who now belives in reincarnation on hearsay evidence that Randi would laugh out of court? I could go on, the internet is a godsend :) for finding flaws in these characters who pretend to be Enlightened.


There are no such cliffs.

Perhaps a slow descent into quicksand is a better analogy?

[The Atheist]

...Or Ricard, a former scientist who now belives in reincarnation on hearsay evidence that Randi would laugh out of court?...

Randi a judge now? No wonder he retired.

[Paulclem]

But the "testing" could mean a lifetime (or more :) ) spent doing meditation & the practices. If you, as many do, find thse practices, extremely tedious, are you prepared to face a lifetime of boredom in the slim chance that Buddhism might be right?



What you are trying to do is effect a change within yourself. There are stages, and what seems tedious to the onlooker is not to the practitioner. It's bound up in realising objectives completed. there is a stage - I've heard - where you develop a love for the cushion.



So the teachers capture the students (and their money!) for a lifetime. And even the highest teachers, those giving the highest meditation classes, might be unenlightened, they may even write books praised universally as "the best" and still give up Buddhism (read Paul Williams "The Unexpected Way").



Capturing students does not describe the many Buddhists who are quietly working away teaching students who come to them. There are clearly exploiters in every field, but it is unfair to try to tarnish all with this. I fact a Teacher is not allowed to accept payment for teaching the Dharma. This is common knowledge.

Are you sure Paul Williams is the highest teacher? Let me know by what criteria you judge him? I've not heard of him but I'll look him up. Also, there's nothing to stop people leaving Buddhism. Each has their own path, and it's not a problem.

[Paulclem]

Would that be for Buddhist, now Catholic, Paul Williams' guide to Mahayana Buddhism? Or the works of alcoholic and dangerous driver Chogyam Trungpa? Or Ricard, a former scientist who now belives in reincarnation on hearsay evidence that Randi would laugh out of court? I could go on, the internet is a godsend :) for finding flaws in these characters who pretend to be Enlightened.



As I said, each to his own path. It's fine to pick out examples for whom Buddhism doesn't work. It's clearly not for everyone, but HH The Dalai Lama says that generally people should follow the religion of their own tradition unless they have a strong pull towards Buddhism.

Again I said there are those who claim to be Enlightened, but who clearly aren't, yet Buddhism works for many millions of Buddhists worldwide. Yes it's easy to find bad examples. the good examples perhaps don't make good reading.

As for evidence of reincarnation - we had another thread on that. I think one of the problems of evidence is a misapprehension about what Buddhism means by reincarnation. When I die - according to the teachings - everything that I consider to be me - body, my sense of I or personality, dissolves. That is not what is reincarnated. The energy of the karma I generate is said to cause the next life - be that human, animal, ghost - whatever. It doesn't leave evidence that can be measured anyway.

I also agree that there is no empirical evidence. A practitioner has to find their own subjective evidence - through meditation practices or perhaps visions. That's not to say that there aren't Buddhist who have not found that evidence yet. I knew a Buddhist Nun who didn't believe/ or hadn't come across her own evidence. the advice was to continue with the practice until there was reason to think it was true. I think that is an honest approach, and the one a person would find in contact with Buddhism.

I liked your comment suggesting the path would take more than one life to complete. An ordinary person can't expect to achieve much in one lifetime. An interesting take on this was related by a Western Monk who worked closely with HH The dalai Lama. After 30 years of meditation practice - and not believing in reincarnation along the way too - he realised that the High Tibetan Monks around him - including The Dalai Lama - were much further on in their development of spontaneous compassion etc. His conclusion was that they had started this life at a different place along the path to where he himself had. It was this observation that led him to be convinced of the truth of reincarnation because he realised that to have developed as much as they had, they needed to have been practising long before this life. No doubt Randi woud laugh that out of court too, but as I said, there's no empirical, measurable evidence - only inference. No evidence at all to others.

[Odysseus93]

yes. end of discussion. period

[mal4mac]

When I die - according to the teachings - everything that I consider to be me - body, my sense of I or personality, dissolves. That is not what is reincarnated. The energy of the karma I generate is said to cause the next life - be that human, animal, ghost - whatever. It doesn't leave evidence that can be measured anyway.


All forms of energy can be measured, if it is any kind of physical energy. If it isn't any kind opf physical energy then how can karma have any affect on the physical domain of, say, baby production?

If I don't reincarnate why would I care hwat my karma gets up to? If my 'sense of I' dissolves then 'I' can't feel the pain of being reincarnated as a rat heading for a trap...

If reincarnation happens then there is physical evidence! 'Something' goes form the dead person to the reincarnation, so the task is to capture that and measure it. If nothing goes ther ei s*no* evidence, subjective or otherwise and reincarnation does not exits. Reincarnation might be a nice story that give syou a warm glow in thinking about, but that isn't 'subjective evidence' , it's just the same as the nice feeling kids get from thinking about Santa.

Some Christian priests also give the advice to "continue with the practice until there is reason to think it is true". It's just one more scam to keep the money coming in.

Chogyam Trungpa was a Tibetan Monk of the highest order just short of The Dalai Lama. He had the 'spontaneous compassion' of a blind-drunk driver. Such low-lifes are pretty low on the 'spontaneous compassion' scale in my book, far behind 'non-violent' thieves for instance. Where was his 'spontaneous compassion' for the people he might have seriously injured through his driving antics?

You might say he was an exception. But is there any serious evidence for Tibetan Buddhist monks showing more 'spontaneous compassion' than the average Western Joe or Jane?



His conclusion was that they had started this life at a different place along the path to where he himself had. It was this observation that led him to be convinced of the truth of reincarnation because he realised that to have developed as much as they had, they needed to have been practising long before this life. No doubt Randi woud laugh that out of court too, but as I said, there's no empirical, measurable evidence - only inference. No evidence at all to others.

Acts of compassion can be measured. For instance (as a rough start) count the number of times the Red Cross are mentioned in news reports compared to the Buddhist equivalent...

[Kyriakos]

I was also thinking- to stir, perhaps, the discussion somewhere else :D - that the idea of god might not be innate in the sense that its first conscious appearence was innate or linked to something innate, but that a non-conscious aspect in the psyche bears it.
What i mean is that it is most probable that the child first comes into contact with the idea of a god through his social circle. My parents were religious, and i must have heard something about god when i was very young. But that idea is something entirely linked to external activities, god being seen as a force that prevents actions, or encouradges others.
I know for a fact that my early view of god was that he was a god of hatred an fear. But this was not innate at all, since it had to do with preventions argued by my parents as correct due to some inconsistent and illogical paradigm/belief. So i thought that god gave such false beliefs to people, so that they would be his slaves :devil:

But the fact that this idea was very much not innate does not mean that there isnt any innate idea about a "god". This god can be a myriad of things. For example the psyche is so vast that any sort of power that holds it into place could be seen as a deity, in regards to consciousness. (For what it's worth i identify as an atheist, however i am interested in the idea of a god).

So my argument is simple: whereas it is seems highly likely that the first conscious ideas of a god are not at all linked to anything innate about it, there still could be something innate about this idea, which is responsible for its appearence, in some form, to people. Note that even an atheist has one, or more ideas about a god, he just dismisses them as false. :)

[Paulclem]

All forms of energy can be measured, if it is any kind of physical energy. If it isn't any kind opf physical energy then how can karma have any affect on the physical domain of, say, baby production?

If I don't reincarnate why would I care hwat my karma gets up to? If my 'sense of I' dissolves then 'I' can't feel the pain of being reincarnated as a rat heading for a trap...

If reincarnation happens then there is physical evidence! 'Something' goes form the dead person to the reincarnation, so the task is to capture that and measure it. If nothing goes ther ei s*no* evidence, subjective or otherwise and reincarnation does not exits. Reincarnation might be a nice story that give syou a warm glow in thinking about, but that isn't 'subjective evidence' , it's just the same as the nice feeling kids get from thinking about Santa.


This is difficult to account for - the term subtle energy is used. This is easy to interpret by the sceptic as non-existent. Beyond that I can't comment, having no direct experience or knowledge of it.

Actually there is a claim of subtle physical energy - referred to as the Indestructible drop which is located in one of the chakras. it is this which moves. As for measurement - well I don't know about that. Buddhists claim that on death a person isn't spiritually dead yet, even though the heart has stopped etc. The process is said to take a little longer than the clinically dead pronouncement. We reach an impasse where we don't measure, haven't the tools to check, don't notice or it doesn't happen as claimed.

As for caring what happens after, the Buddha explained this as a middle way - neither annihilation nor eternalism ie in the form of a soul. Perhaps we should look at an infamous example - Mao and Stalin - who denied religion - which was their choice - were responsible for the deaths of millions - which was also their choice. Were their deaths calm and uncaring?

Reincarnation might be a nice story

The romantic view of reincarntion - which many westerners in particular have - may be a nice story, but Buddhism's is not. The chances of being reborn as a human are very slim. Just consider how many beings there are on earth, and how many options for a very unfortunate rebirth there are. What is the prognosis for almost every animals life? birth, ageing, sickness - with no medical care at all for the vast majority, and death. Human life offers an opportunity to improve/ escape this round of suffering.

Chogyam Trungpa - I wasn't trying to dodge the issue by not mentioning him - I just forgot, is an example that anyone can succumb to negative actions. There were accusations of sexual misconduct too. What can i say. there's no defending the indefensible, but bad examples don't necessarily disprove the veracity of the path. There are lots of warnings for teachers and students in the teachings - about appropriate behaviour. The Vinaya - rules for Monks and Nuns, mainly formulated at The Buddha's time contain loads of detailed rules that were made up to address problems as they went along. One was that no Monk/ Nun should have their begging bowls made out of anything but wood. Clearly, some were using elaborate, metal ones. Others include a prohibition on demonstrating miracle powers to impress people.

That reminds me - on the question of faith. The practices used by Buddhists come with warnings about their misuse due to the karmic repercussins that can come from a misuse of power. Actually anyone - they don't have to be Buddhist - can use the practices. One such notorious practice is in the form of Tantric sex. It can be learnt and used by anyone who is willing to train themselves.

On evidence -I have met two people who knew other people's minds - a miracle power. This wasn't demonstrated for it's sake but was a teaching tool used by a Sri Lankan Monk. He would get us to meditate upon his instructions and then tell us afterwards how our meditation had gone and dispense advice. He didn't ask us how it went. He clearly knew. I'm only an internet voice, and it's no proof to anyone but those of us who were there.

The thing about powers is that they can be developed by anyone with the will to do so. the consequences will be damaging without a strong moral code and a virtuous aim. Buddhism is very clear about this for teachers and students.

Sorry Kyriakos - i don't mean to abduct your thread. But we have! Sorry.

[Kyriakos]

Sorry Kyriakos - i don't mean to abduct your thread. But we have! Sorry.

It's ok :) Each one contributes in his own way. :cheers2:

[mal4mac]

This is difficult to account for - the term subtle energy is used. This is easy to interpret by the sceptic as non-existent.

To try and get back on thread - how can you know there is a innate God? No experience you have could reveal a being who is eternal, omnipoent, etc. Any "feeling"of such a being would be denied by Buddhists, who might explain it away as 'subtle energy', or Freudians might explain it as an unconscious feeling 'swelling up'. How could you know who was right?


What is the prognosis for almost every animals life? birth, ageing, sickness - with no medical care at all for the vast majority, and death. Human life offers an opportunity to improve/ escape this round of suffering.

Maybe death itself is the solution! Maybe Epicurus is correct. When we are dead we do not suffer because we can only feel suffering through our external and internal senses. When we die the body dissolves, so do our senses, and indeed our consciousness (which needs a brain to support it.) If pressed, I would say that this is what I believe - and it's very comforting! (Epicurus was right about that as well...) If pressed even harder I would say I simply don't know what happens after death, that's also quite comforting...

[Paulclem]

To try and get back on thread - how can you know there is a innate God? No experience you have could reveal a being who is eternal, omnipoent, etc. Any "feeling"of such a being would be denied by Buddhists, who might explain it away as 'subtle energy', or Freudians might explain it as an unconscious feeling 'swelling up'. How could you know who was right?



Maybe death itself is the solution! Maybe Epicurus is correct. When we are dead we do not suffer because we can only feel suffering through our external and internal senses. When we die the body dissolves, so do our senses, and indeed our consciousness (which needs a brain to support it.) If pressed, I would say that this is what I believe - and it's very comforting! (Epicurus was right about that as well...) If pressed even harder I would say I simply don't know what happens after death, that's also quite comforting...


It's a good question. This is propounded by ecumenicals who claim that "we're all on the same path really". Depite the wish to make religions accessibe to each, and to develop good relations with the religions, which I can see the point of, I thnk a better form of tolerance is the acceptance and respect of difference. The closest Christian description of God to the Buddhist view of ultimate reality that I have heard is God being the Ground of Being. I think there is an intense scrutiny through meditation that is part of the path. If a creator God existed, then he is not found, nor is the associated soul or any eternal image or part.

As for the argument for annihilation or eternalism with a soul, this has been going on since the Buddha's time. I agree that the idea that annihilation follows death is comforting. It is certainly easier to cope with than the possibility of rebirth in a hell, or as an insect.

I also have to say that I don't know what happens after death for sure - though I've read about the process. An important Buddhist practice is to meditate on death in order to convince oneself that it is going to happen. This seems strange at first; we all know intellectually that we will die. The problem is that the intellectual knowledge is not a full realisation of the reality. This is why nearly dying can be a life changing experience for some people. Theyreally know they are mortal. These death meditations can then deepen to the actual process - the point being to familiarise oneself with it so as to be able to generate a positive state of mind when it comes - for the next positive rebirth.

I'll just add that it is not intended to be depressing but to really motivate one in this life.

[mal4mac]

An important Buddhist practice is to meditate on death in order to convince oneself that it is going to happen. This seems strange at first; we all know intellectually that we will die. The problem is that the intellectual knowledge is not a full realisation of the reality. This is why nearly dying can be a life changing experience for some people. Theyreally know they are mortal. These death meditations can then deepen to the actual process - the point being to familiarise oneself with it so as to be able to generate a positive state of mind when it comes - for the next positive rebirth..

Why do you have to pursue such a difficult, esoteric practice to give full consideration to death? The Ancient Greek philosophers viewed the philosophical life as being, in large part, a preparation for death. For instance, Epicurus had a very clear and simple practice for contemplating & defusing the fear of death. Having spent, probably, the same amount of time reading and "meditating on" Buddhist and Epicurean philosophies of death, the philosophy of Epicurus seems far more simple & effective.

"If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they’re not dead, and not for the dead, since they don’t exist."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5g

[Paulclem]

Why do you have to pursue such a difficult, esoteric practice to give full consideration to death? The Ancient Greek philosophers viewed the philosophical life as being, in large part, a preparation for death. For instance, Epicurus had a very clear and simple practice for contemplating & defusing the fear of death. Having spent, probably, the same amount of time reading and "meditating on" Buddhist and Epicurean philosophies of death, the philosophy of Epicurus seems far more simple & effective.

"If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they’re not dead, and not for the dead, since they don’t exist."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5g

The pursuit of enlightenment is a lives-long activity. Other practices can be completed in this life, such as the death meditations. Death is one of a round of 21 Lam Rim practices in Tibetan Buddhsm. These are standard practices for any Buddhist, but include meditations on ultimate reality. There are said to be three levels of practitioner in Tibetan Buddhism. The new practitioner's aim is to secure a fortunate rebirth with the ability to pursue and deepen spiritual practice. The second level is to develop Bodhicitta - spontaneous compassion for all beings. The third level of practitioner is working towards Enlightenment.

The Epcurean approach to death is interesting. I see the argument, but it only works for annihilation, not reincarnation.

The point in Buddhism about death is not that it is necessarily bad, but it undoubtedly causes suffering in the anticipation of it and in the fear and pain in the process. Anyone who has been witha dying person can see that it is a release in some cases. The suffering is still there though. Meditations on death can mitigate the suffering and give a person a focus and understanding in order to do a virtuous practice that will encourage a fortunate rebirth. Dying in fear and regret, or with resentment or a violent negative mind results in an unfortunate outcome.

[Taliesin]

Well, in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Practical_atheism there is a following passage:

Practical atheism can take various forms:
Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
Unawareness of the concept of a deity.[54]
[edit]

If this is correct, I think that this would be evidence against the idea. If you wish, you might look at the sources to validate whether the information is right or not. As for myself, I just can't be bothered, since it seems to me that the existence of all those Buddhists already constitutes of enough evidence.

[LMK]

God is simply a word, the concept is much larger; the natural flow of the universe, that which is cannot always be explained. Man does not seem to like it when things can't be explained; sometimes man works diligently to find answers, sometimes convenient stories are told or inspired by something deep and heartfelt shares with others.

However one looks at it, throughout the ages and across the many cultural differences, man (and wo-man) have sought something larger than themselves. Reasons for being, reasons for seasons, creation, happiness, sadness, sunset and sunrise, catching fish, health, whatever it may be and those reasons often include an explanation including a word like God (of some type) to indicate that it is a farther reaching sometimes abstract or esoteric idea.

Does that make it innate human nature when these cultures are divided in time and space without any contact with one another? Perhaps.

Does it make it true if science can repeat the answer? Perhaps.
Does it make it less true if science and scientific laws are created by God, or simply exist in the flow of the universe? I don’t think so.

[El Viejo]

There are 1.2-1.6 Billion Buddhists, (Googled), who do not hold the idea of a creator God in a supreme ultimate sense. This challenges the idea that it is innate.

Agreed. What's innate is that we think about these things. We can't imagine our own consciousness ending, so we wonder where babies are before they're babies, and where people go when they die.

To a limited extent the rudiments of the scientific process are innate--when we have little or no information we form hypotheses. In the past we often couldn't test our hypotheses so we embroidered on them, and there is the germ of religion.

[LMK]

Agreed. What's innate is that we think about these things. We can't imagine our own consciousness ending, so we wonder where babies are before they're babies, and where people go when they die.

To a limited extent the rudiments of the scientific process are innate--when we have little or no information we form hypotheses. In the past we often couldn't test our hypotheses so we embroidered on them, and there is the germ of religion.

First there is a difference between innate belief in God and the existence of religion. Religion is entirely man made institutions about what people should and/or should not do, how they should live.

Second, God is a word that is a word for that thought about what is beyond us, like where babies are before they are conceived.

Thirdly, the OP did not ask for forum members to discuss the concept of an innate creator God, but rather innate God…something bigger than oneself. Buddhists believe that sentient beings can achieve nirvana (a higher plane, out of the succession of life and death) – something bigger than oneself.

And finally, in the discussions I have had with the few Buddhists I have had the pleasure to know (both of ‘the vehicle’ and ‘the elders’) I have found that neither tradition have beliefs or teachings that preclude a creator element (or creator God).

[Heteronym]

I'd recommend reading Paul Bloom's Descartes' Baby. Bloom is a cognitive scientist and he made some tests with babies to study the conception of soul/body dualism and the data he collected suggests that babies are naturally predisposed to believe in the existence of souls, and also Creationism, in an intellectual design giving order to things. Therefore, Bloom concludes, one learns to become an atheist.

[MarkBastable]

I'd recommend reading Paul Bloom's Descartes' Baby. Bloom is a cognitive scientist and he made some tests with babies to study the conception of soul/body dualism and the data he collected suggests that babies are naturally predisposed to believe in the existence of souls, and also Creationism, in an intellectual design giving order to things. Therefore, Bloom concludes, one learns to become an atheist.


That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that something might be true because two-year-olds tend to believe it.

[Heteronym]

It's more complicated than that. It's not what children believe. Bloom wasn't asking them questions, some weren't even old enough to speak. He studied their reactions in tests and concluded from their behavior that children are prone to see a design in things, expect things to work in a certain way and follow an order.

[David Lurie]

I personally believe that religion and the "innate sense of God" are not always one and the same.

Good point but I think spirituality could be a more precise word than religion: spirituality is an individual thing, the quest for meaning in life could be an innate feeling, religion is only one of the possible answers to this common human need but so is atheism.

[MarkBastable]

Good point but I think spirituality could be a more precise word than religion: spirituality is an individual thing, the quest for meaning in life could be an innate feeling, religion is only one of the possible answers to this common human need but so is atheism.

Quite. There's no reason why the search for meaning in life - if it's an imperative at all - should necessarily be conducted in the realm of the spiritual.

[The Atheist]

It's more complicated than that. It's not what children believe. Bloom wasn't asking them questions, some weren't even old enough to speak. He studied their reactions in tests and concluded from their behavior that children are prone to see a design in things, expect things to work in a certain way and follow an order.

So, this bloke subjectively interprets what he sees, then uses it to come to a conclusion that children are innately disposed to believe in creationism?

Having read some of his findings, I think someone ought to remind him that Lamarckism has been completely refuted.

Still, he's a great example of why psychologists and philosophers should get a science degree first.

[Heteronym]

I don't know what you've read by him or why the hostility towards him, but as a psychologist he is a a man of science and deserves benefit of the doubt. Plus his findings are shared by other people. This article is a quick sum of his ideas:

http://www.condition.org/nh95.htm

[Scheherazade]

I would like to point out that I suggested this very same idea in the Children's Letters to God (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=919733&postcount=10) thread!

[MarkBastable]

I don't know what you've read by him or why the hostility towards him, but as a psychologist he is a a man of science and deserves benefit of the doubt.

If there's one thing from which science should never derive benefit, it's doubt.

[OrphanPip]

I'd recommend reading Paul Bloom's Descartes' Baby. Bloom is a cognitive scientist and he made some tests with babies to study the conception of soul/body dualism and the data he collected suggests that babies are naturally predisposed to believe in the existence of souls, and also Creationism, in an intellectual design giving order to things. Therefore, Bloom concludes, one learns to become an atheist.

Books are a dangerous source to get scientific information from, often "science" books are published through small presses with agendas and aren't peer reviewed.

In the case of Bloom's book it is published by Basic Books, a publisher that specializes in popular science, and doesn't seem agenda driven. However, it is not an academic press and it's not likely Bloom's findings are anything more than his subjective views about psychology. Although, Bloom is also a respected cognitive scientist working out of Yale.

Anyway, from what I can glean from summaries is that Bloom is proposing that babies have inborn expectations about the physical world, as well as inborn expectations about intention and "the mind" so to speak. He then proposes that this gives rise to beliefs like creationism, because we expect intent in all things. This isn't the same as a belief in God being innate, like I said in my first post in this thread, the notion of a God like being is complex and requires a cultural foundation to exist. There's a reason why vague notions of fate are nearly universal across human cultures, but anthropomorphic deities are not.

[The Atheist]

I don't know what you've read by him or why the hostility towards him, but as a psychologist he is a a man of science and deserves benefit of the doubt.

I remain unconvinced that psychology is a science, but I have no hostility towards Bloom at all. (Funnily enough, that's my mother's maiden surname - I might even be related to him.)

Why should I give him (or anyone) a free pass? If he wanted to have a scientifically correct position, he would have published his findings for review.

My problem is best summed up - as usual - by an actual scientist:


In the case of Bloom's book it is published by Basic Books, a publisher that specializes in popular science, and doesn't seem agenda driven. However, it is not an academic press and it's not likely Bloom's findings are anything more than his subjective views about psychology.

The alleged results aren't peer-reviewed and can only ever be subjective. Having spent most of my life around kids, I find Bloom's ideas laughable, but I'll keep an open mind on the subject until further, and proper, research is conducted. That's as far as my benefit of doubt extends.

[Aragorn Elessar]

Interesting. I'm trying to think back to when I was a child and what I thought about God before I was biased by Christians to believe what they believe because, apparently, that's what is right. (Sarcasm.) And to tell you the truth, I never really put much thought into such matters when I was little (and by little, I mean before age...9 or so). But even when I went to Christian churches, I didn't fully understand why I went or who God was. It was just kind of a mindless routine to me. I'm pretty sure I thought, at the time, that most people in the world did the same sort of thing. Never understood why.

Actually I never was much of a philosopher in my childhood. But by the age of...10 or 11, I began to put thought into what God is and became an atheist by the age of 12. Nonetheless, I have always had a sort of innate feeling that something supernatural is out there, even though I do not believe it. I think everyone feels such a thing simply because we are curious human beings and we know so little about the grand scale of the cosmos. It is not necessarily an innate feeling because we believe in it, but because we are curious about its existence. I've been an atheist for a long time, but I think I will always have the innate feeling that something supernatural is out there.

[LMK]

.....

[NikolaiI]

The difficulty that I have had in the discussion is the word 'God'. It seems to bring about such passion that discussion seems hindered.

Yes, very much so.

[LMK]

Descartes thought it was, although his reasoning was circular.
Personally i think it is, although at the same time i do not regard this as proof that god exists, at any rate not as something in the external world.

But it is interesting that everyone can have some notion of a god, and then so seldom do people wonder if their particular notion has much to do with that of the next person. It would seem to me that it is highly likely that each one has something very different, and thus religious discussions re based on a wrong standing point, that accroding to which the members of the discussion actually refer to the same, or at least an analogous, thing.
I do enjoy discussing the topic , and don't agree with some comments shared and do agree with other comments shared.

The difficulty that I have had in the discussion is the word 'God'. It seems to bring about such passion that discussion seems hindered.

I don't know if the idea of God is innate; perhaps the suggestion that the idea of something larger than one's self is true; be it a higher power, God, a series of Gods, the all encompassing energy of the universe, nirvana (a plane beyond life and death), whatever.

Do I know? No.

Does it matter? Not really, to me.

I think I would prefer the discussion without "God" and the assumed "Christianity" that seems to have attached itself to it, but it is not my thread.

Those are my thoughts as of now. Who knows if I will have an epiphany and have something new and insightful to share?

[Heteronym]

Anyway, from what I can glean from summaries is that Bloom is proposing that babies have inborn expectations about the physical world, as well as inborn expectations about intention and "the mind" so to speak. He then proposes that this gives rise to beliefs like creationism, because we expect intent in all things. This isn't the same as a belief in God being innate, like I said in my first post in this thread, the notion of a God like being is complex and requires a cultural foundation to exist. There's a reason why vague notions of fate are nearly universal across human cultures, but anthropomorphic deities are not.

I find Bloom's theory pertinent to this discussion anyway. I see a connection between believing in God and believing in intelligent design. If people are naturally predisposed to look for design, planning, meaning and a superior order in things, believing in God is just a consequence of that.

George Steiner wrote a book that explores this matter from another perspective: Nostalgia for the Absolute. In it he explains how Marxism, Freudian psychology, New Age, etc., are just ideas people are using to replace the idea of God. Steiner argues that modern people are living in spiritual emptiness and looking for something that will fill that void.

[MarkBastable]

Steiner argues that modern people are living in spiritual emptiness and looking for something that will fill that void.

One could as easily conclude that ancient people were filling an inquisitive void with God whilst waiting for Freud to show up.

[OrphanPip]

I find Bloom's theory pertinent to this discussion anyway. I see a connection between believing in God and believing in intelligent design. If people are naturally predisposed to look for design, planning, meaning and a superior order in things, believing in God is just a consequence of that.

Believing in gods would be a possible outcome of that predisposition, but that's hardly a groundbreaking idea. I started out in this thread saying humanity has a tendency for projecting anthropomorphic expectations on the natural world. Obviously, some humans are religious, thus there has to be an ultimate psychological reason for that, which is not the same thing as belief in a deity being innate. Also, his idea is a set of hypotheses at most, and no where near a theory in the scientific sense.



George Steiner wrote a book that explores this matter from another perspective: Nostalgia for the Absolute. In it he explains how Marxism, Freudian psychology, New Age, etc., are just ideas people are using to replace the idea of God. Steiner argues that modern people are living in spiritual emptiness and looking for something that will fill that void.

That's just silly, plenty of people who believe in these things have been religious. And we didn't have a shortage of stupid movements and ideas prior to religion. Astrology and numerology have been plenty popular dingbat ideas for centuries. "Spiritual emptiness" is quite a subjective term also. I am neither Marxist, Freudian, or a New Age hippie, while still not being a believer in imaginary friends.

[The Atheist]

Actually I never was much of a philosopher in my childhood. But by the age of...10 or 11, I began to put thought into what God is and became an atheist by the age of 12.

Same sort of age as me.

I started to note the similarities between Jesus and Santa and decided at about 10 that they were equivalent in every respect - fairytales to try to obtain obedience.

I haven't changed my opinion much in the next 40 years!

:D


I find Bloom's theory pertinent to this discussion anyway.

Yes, but until his work is worth the term "theory" from a scientific standpoint (there's a thread with a discussion on that point somewhere), it is merely his own opinion and no more valid that yours, mine or anyone else's.


I see a connection between believing in God and believing in intelligent design.

Well, most design proponents are - that's how it works.

:)

Most of the arguments I've ever heard in favour of design point to what they see as design examples in the world. Some of them are pretty funny, though - the banana one especially.


If people are naturally predisposed to look for design, planning, meaning and a superior order in things, believing in God is just a consequence of that.

Have you considered the perspective of a child born in 2010 to one born in 300,000 BC? In 300,000 BC, kids were born into a world of trees and animals.

In 2010, they are born into a world where every single facet of their lives is dominated by things designed by humans. I think Bloom has massively over-complicated a very simple process.


Steiner argues that modern people are living in spiritual emptiness and looking for something that will fill that void.

That is an extremely common theistic response to atheism - that it's empty.

I find the idea absurd myself, but I can see why someone looking through religion-tinted spectacles would think that way. Thinking any different might disinvest their own delusions.

[Aragorn Elessar]

Personally, I'm always open to the idea that supernatural forces exist. It's not likely, and indeed by scientific measures, not possible. But when I think about THE ultimate question, (Where did it all come from?) I can't help but think that something supernatural may be involved. The science of the beginning of everything, I think, is far too complex for Man to ever understand even on a basic level. We can only search and speculate. Science is about the journey to understanding...not about coming to a truly logical and all-encompassing conclusion about everything. We can improve upon theories for as long as we improve upon science, but no theory will ever become a fact. And that's what makes science so interesting. We know so little about the grand scale of the universe, and it's actually quite enlightening to know that man does not and will not understand it; it's a constant reminder of how little and perhaps unimportant we are.

But I don't think we will ever find reason not to have hope in a higher power - I say hope, not faith! For faith involves belief and trust, while hope is simply a wish, however optimistic. Reason is a faculty we should always approach in science and philosophy, but I don't think that reason will ever degrade hope. So hope I shall keep in an afterlife and in graceful gods above, however absurd I think the belief is! The whole concept may seem impossible to me, but again, we know little of the origin of space and time - of everything. And I suppose, then, it is a possibility. Questions will always be raised - and rightfully so - of the origins of the gods. If they created the universe, what created them? And so on. It's endless - for how can something be produced by absolutely nothing. And I don't mean dark matter, or empty space, as you may think of it. I mean nothing. The concept is far above our heads, and like I said, we search the universe and speculate the history and origin. But we can also hope: we can hope that we are not so alone, that a creator with a mind produced us and that there is more to our lives than Earth. As unlikely as this may be, for no evidence of any supernatural force exists... there is always hope!

[IceM]

I think it's fair to say that people are not born with an immediate religious disposition (Christian, Muslim, etc), but the fact that cultures around the world have developed religious beliefs suggests there perhaps is a propensity within people to seek meaning beyond what is concrete and known in the world. But I also deny that children are born atheists, as I said earlier before.