If you were introduced to the notion of God today....

Post Reply New Topic

Taking just the poll question: as a Catholic looking over at Islam, I've found it plausible. That is to say, there is truth in the religion; and beauty; and goodness. But not the sum of any of those - so while I don't entirely dismiss it, I'm not about to sign up either.

As to the OP: I can't stand out of my own experience enough for that scenario. I'll second Orwell, though, that there are plenty of people who have found the "new idea" plausible - some after extensive study, some not.

I'm not sure that many of the other beliefs reinforced by our culture that lead to personal demise are much more rational, yet many run full speed off the cliff chasing them. And many are completely unaware the cliff is ahead.

Ten years from now, if scientists determine that viewing pornography on a ritualized basis decreases life by an average of ten years, while someone who avoids the temptation because of morals established by a primitive religion leads a longer healthier life; which choice was the best one. I don't know; it's a personal matter. The person watching the pornography might have died ten years earlier with a smile on their face.

The decisions that feel good aren't necessarily the healthy ones, and perceived irrational beliefs aren't necessarily the harmful ones. Normally, though people engage in activities that promote survival. Christianity is an established activity, with known social benefits, while 24/7 porn is a pretty new phenonmenon, with immediate personal benefits and one of the strongest correlations to survival known to mankind.

We choose what makes us feel good. For some it is a dinner on church grounds, for others it is perusing porn at work. And for others it is both.

Hard to say at this point who is going to come sunny side up in the long run. No pun intended.

I imagine there are more Christians getting converted to pornography than there are people that enjoy pornography getting converted to christianity. No surprise there; humans are subject to the power of immediate gratification. Porn has much more power than prayer for many.

By the way, the porn example was something I'm "guessing" most people here can personally relate to; not a serious example, but a reflection of the power of culture.

For some it is the person working two jobs killing themselves slowly with stress, because they can't be happy unless they have a larger home or nicer car.

There are endless examples of beliefs that can become harmful that are promoted and reinforced by culture, not many of us are immune to them.

Are the beliefs and benefits inspired by popular culture more advantageous than those inspired by religion as a whole? Is our "advanced" culture taking us to a better place in life than what religion provided for some in the past? I think what works for some doesn't work for others.

Finally to the OP question, if I had never heard of Christianity, 21 years old enjoying the benefits of popular culture that are available today, I doubt I would have given it a second thought.

However, if I was lonely and depressed, and the social connections I had from church kept me from being totally alone, it would have been priceless; and it was.

I don't think that one can underestimate the value that some receive from those connections. The fact that some have the connection to others through religious endeavors, to me, is a much stronger factor than anything else I understand about religion.

As has been pointed out, the probability I would have reached adulthood without hearing of any divine entity theories is vanishingly small. But if it were possible, I have to assume that it would be like hearing for the first time about, say, String Theory [I remember hearing of that for the first time].

The process:

Question 1: Is the matter one of at least minimal potential interest? I have found cosmology reasonably interesting since "The Stars for Sam", so, yes. If I were introduced to "How to make Friends and Influence People", the answer would be no. Divine entity theory? I THINK if it came out of the blue, presented as possible truth not as anthropology, it would be somewhere in between. Higher if presented as a cosmological theory, lower if presented as means to change.

Question 2: Is the person from whom I first hear about it one from whom I can receive, one from whom I cannot, or neutral. If Feynman tells me about String Theory or divine entity theory, it will seem worth looking into. If Kaku tells me about divine entity theory or String Theory, it will tend to turn me off unless the topic really grabs me, UNLESS he irritates me so much I check it out to see just how stupid it is.

Question 3: do the data and conclusions presented by any proponents in my vicinity jibe with my own experiences and mind? As long as they do, I will continue to probe until I get a clear sense of True and Relevant, True but Irrelevant, False but Insignificant, or False and Dangerous.

Together there, us or them (concepts), I think we find a winning combination.

I think people would look at the idea through the filter of their culture and consider it or reject it on those grounds. That seems to be what happens as religions form and spread. How acceptable an idea is seems to depend on how well it meshes with a person's current worldview. Christianity didn't just come up with the idea cold. It built on (Jewish) peoples' already existing concept of a Messiah. Monotheism didn't come in cold. It built on already existing polytheism and just consolidated all the gods into one God. Polytheism built on Animism and so on down the line.

So while I think that the whole Jesus story would be unacceptably specific for people with no religious tradition to build on whatsoever, the idea of God would not. Currently there a lot of people with a scientific mindset (and/or job) who believe in a God who never intervened on earth and actually has not intervened in our universe at all beyond setting the big bang in motion and thereby "writing" all the physical laws of the universe that science has discovered. So I think people just adapt ideas to conform to their existing mindset and if those ideas are unadaptable, reject them outright.

People also don't just weight the idea in isolation. They also weigh who is presenting it. That's also how religions spread. There's an element of "nothing succeeds like success" so that if the backers of an odd idea seem to be thriving, that makes the idea more plausible (they must be on to something if they are thriving). So if this no-religious-tradition society encountered a religious society, then how well the idea was accepted or not would also depend on how well the people promoting were doing vs. how well the people being asked to acceopt it were doing. I've seen this with non-religious (but not staunchly atheist) people who start dabbling in shamanic religions on the grounds that the people in those traditions seem less neurotic, stressed and generally unhappy (than the non-religious dabbler) so they must be on to something.

I disagree, if "extensive" goes on much more, then we have no practical use of the word. After all, even though you have an elitist framework, we really have to recognize that "extensive" must be understood in a manner that fits for more people than just graduate students if it has a practical usage.

If you look at the growth in cults today, their growth isn't a matter of plausibility, but social networks and how those go together. People end up joining for emotional satisfaction, not the goodness of the idea.

Searching topic

I love researching, being curious, though I always start with I believe is a healthy skepticism, the seed of doubt. Once I have made up my mind, and taken a stance, it would take a lot more evidence to the contrary before i would adopt another conclusion. So far, there is not much that has changed, though I do believe that the pot laws as they stand need revision, though I do not advocate the use of pot (this is an example).

So I would research something, in a way i consider extensive, like a religious belief, often out of the love of curiousity.

That's a good point. For someone that believes in God or a creator, but particpates in no ritual or organization in support of that belief, there probably is little difference in the impact that has on someone as opposed to believing in the world as they see it.

The majority of the world are not research scientists; they follow along with what is socially appropriate; and in many areas of the world belonging and participating in religion is a requirement of proper social protocal. Some people have little to no choice in the matter.

The basic tenant of many religions is faith; plausibility has little to no impact on the equation for those that participate. Many people that have faith create a built in aversion to question it.

While there are many atheists and theists that participate in no rituals directly related to their beliefs that provide social connection; there are obviously some of the atheist pursuasion that participate in an argument against theism and are socially connected by that common belief that God is not a plausible idea.

Social connection is the #1 factor, as researched by scientists, that affects happiness and satisfaction in life. Outside of work, school, and family, religion is the only other arena that some people find actual face to face social interaction.

The goodness of it all is people coming together and supporting each others needs as human beings. A common belief, goal, or purpose, is easy for humans to maintain for acceptance and social connection. I don't see where any research is necessary to understand that.

Humans are driven by emotion, not logic; science supports this reality. The evidence is visible everywhere we look. Religion and the social connections it provides, is much healthier than many of the other decisions people make in life, naturally driven by emotion.