Why is there this NEED to believe in something?

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I'd personally like to feel like there's somebody up there or behind me that's got my back when I really need it. It's only you, you're five senses (6 in some of our local abductees, New Agers and nordics), and how you decide to perceive the world in front of you. It would be so comforting to feel like you've got a big mom upstairs that'll forgive you for your mistakes, help you find your way through them, and make you feel like somebody. But no, unfortunately you've only got yourself and humanity to help you through this life. What you decide to do with both dictates your living experience.

I believe in myself. I want to believe in you, in all of us, in all of them, but that takes more courage than stepping off a cliff and hoping not to fall.

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
reply to post by Hefficide

 

But what about uncertainty? Death (especially now days) is a long way (proverbially- unless you're sick or I guess, very old) away. Especially in the case of primitives, I think their focus is more on survival than death. It is in the process of being proven that what we believe affects the outcome of our reality. What about that?
Belief is not about dying (at least for most people) but about living.

Hi DogsDogsDogs!

Unfortunately death is never far away from us in this life. It's only our time once, but we see death many, many times as we make our own journey as others pass. In primitives this is even more of an issue - with higher infant morality rates, more disease, and a shorter life span. But in the western world there are downfalls as well. Better health means more people, living longer... thus a larger pool of people who are statistically more at risk.

I can actually remember the night when I first understood death. I was probably 5 or 6 years old and laying in my bed trying to go to sleep. I do not recall the progression of thoughts which led me to an understanding of the inevitability of death. But I do recall crying quite hysterically. I wasn't crying because I had realized that I would die. I was crying because I had realized that my mother would, one day, leave me.

Communion with those we have lost is a part of the fear of morbidity and lends to the concepts, stated here, as a motive to want so badly to believe.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

Communion with those we have lost is a part of the fear of morbidity and lends to the concepts, stated here, as a motive to want so badly to believe.

~Heff

Again, you ignore the most important question. What caused the first human being to imagine that there is more. What can be empirically gleaned is that the lost loved ones decay and then need to be taken away due to the smell and potential for disease. The idea of the person surviving death, as the embodiment of that person decomposes right in front of you is not a natural or instinctive response to seeing and experiencing that dead person. The leap of logic required is extraordinary and primates don't share that response with us.

Something dramatic and instructive - especially instructive - occurred, at some point in human history, to teach humanity that such a possibility existed. The corporeal brain really isn't capable of a completely original idea. When you examine even the most adventurous ideas and creative expressions you can see the wires if you look hard enough. Everything is derivitive at some level. Everything except the invention of non-corporeal intelligent life.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Thanks for the contribution. Although it seems you are not clear of what I am asking.
Maybe feigning ignorance purposefully? Why not ask why?

Why?

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
reply to post by Hefficide

 

But what about uncertainty? Death (especially now days) is a long way (proverbially- unless you're sick or I guess, very old) away. Especially in the case of primitives, I think their focus is more on survival than death. It is in the process of being proven that what we believe affects the outcome of our reality. What about that?
Belief is not about dying (at least for most people) but about living.

Hi DogsDogsDogs!

Unfortunately death is never far away from us in this life. It's only our time once, but we see death many, many times as we make our own journey as others pass. In primitives this is even more of an issue - with higher infant morality rates, more disease, and a shorter life span. But in the western world there are downfalls as well. Better health means more people, living longer... thus a larger pool of people who are statistically more at risk.

I can actually remember the night when I first understood death. I was probably 5 or 6 years old and laying in my bed trying to go to sleep. I do not recall the progression of thoughts which led me to an understanding of the inevitability of death. But I do recall crying quite hysterically. I wasn't crying because I had realized that I would die. I was crying because I had realized that my mother would, one day, leave me.

Communion with those we have lost is a part of the fear of morbidity and lends to the concepts, stated here, as a motive to want so badly to believe.

~Heff

Good Morning To You!

What you are saying is certainly true. And especially in the case of an afterlife- in any culture, losing those we love and as a motivator for *how* we live our lives (hoping for reunion) I was/ am thinking in terms of a belief system that is more agrarian in nature- seasonal cycles/ food/ survival. (lol I'm not so philosophical about it!)...the natural cycle of life. I think we could learn so much from these "primitives" because we have thought things to death & probably lost sight of what is, basically, important. They are content & happy regardless of their hardships. Us, generally not so much.

Back to your point, though, I think death is hardest for those left behind because we feel the loss so much more (or at all) also. I, personally, believe in reincarnation & precious few who do have any consciousness of who they were/ what went on "last time". I know I would be very depressed to believe that we flickered and just...died, as if we never even existed. That doesn't make sense. Even those who believe, strictly, in evolution, know that everything on this earth fits together in a critical way. There is *some* kind of order & "reason". Certainly, the loss of those we love can cause us to question our beliefs because it's hard to understand/ comprehend what possible "good" can come from this (I don't know- unless it is "just the way it is" & all sentient beings have to go through our personal evolution until the end & we "have to" leave someone "behind".. It has been explained to me this way by an animal communicator. :-) Doesn't mean I have to like it, but it is comforting to believe that we will see one another again. And faced with suffering, it is preferable to let go because you love them more than you need them here)

I think what is so, so personal about a person's beliefs is that truly, no one else has had their set of experiences & their particular "lessons"/ conclusions/ reactions. Not on a deep level. We all have some- probably most instincts similar, but our reactions, what "resonates" (what we *feel*) is true in our hearts, is unique. Is some of it affected &/or filtered by external/ incidental things/ our condition? Sure. We're a "construction" of many, many things. But it is *ours*. We believe what we do because of our experiences & the process that played out in, for good or ill.

Yep. We could drop dead 10 seconds from now, but if what we have in front of us isn't that, we can't do anything but live it. What we believe dictates how we'll do that. All we can do is be honest with ourselves & do the best we can with what we learn. We cannot control anything or anyone, really, but ourselves.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Clever.

2nd live.

VvV

our ancestors wouldnt have to believe in something and pass it on to the sons of man if it didn't manifest itself and moved them.

think about it.

In the end questions, beliefs or disbelief in the matter of whether or not matters very little. Things exist independent of what mankind thinks about them or even whether he thinks they exist at all. Simple fact is, we don't know, and a great many of us have decided for themselves one way or the other for various reasons. The ultimate answer to perhaps an unanswerable question while we are alive.

Simple fact of the matter is, you don't know til you die. I am not advocating either side of the debate because I believe it's more about mankind and his BS then it really is about the question it's self.

reply to post by Hefficide

Now as to your question of why people choose to believe in any number of unverifiable phenomena or concepts... I have a very simple and direct answer:

The fear of mortality.

I believe you are right, Hefficide. We are the only beings that know we must die.

*

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Would you then theorize that if one does not fear death, one would not have this urge to believe?

Perhaps. I should certainly like to think so. But how would we ever know? Those who court death most assiduously are often those who fear it most. And this is a subject on which nobody can be taken at his word.

Besides, I have another answer to set beside Hefficide's:

Fear of life. I believe it is as much a contributor to the 'urge to believe' as fear of death. Yet this, too, is an untestable hypothesis.

*

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

See, I would not classify that as an unreliable belief. I would call it faith.

But that is precisely what faith is--unreliable belief. You don't need to have much faith in a reliable proposition, do you? You pretty much know it's true.

There is an inborn need to believe in something.

I would like to know why you think it is inborn and not conditioned. It is true the religious impulse is near-universal, which suggests it is instinctive, an evolved response. But is there any hard evidence that it is?

Does this not prove to us that there is an higher power somewhere out there, and we are just following our instincts to believe in something?

Not necessarily--in fact, not at all. The question you have to ask is: what is the evolutionary advantage of believing? And though we can't answer that question for certain (yet), we can see how having a common faith might benefit a kin group--a group that shares genes--and benefit, therefore, the genes themselves. Greater social cohesion and group self-definition are obvious advantages to the group in settling internal disputes, securing cooperation on communal projects, and getting everyone to participate in wars against other kin groups.

A set of shared values based on religious sanction might be another such advantage. Perhaps these are sufficient to ensure that a predisposition towards belief in invisible powers is selected for and genetically fixed.

Such ideas are often tossed about among evolutionary biologists. But the idea of a more direct benefit to the believing individual (and his genes) appeals to me. See my reply to NorEaster below.

*

reply to post by NorEaster

You have to wonder just how instinctive it actually is to believe in, or even worship, an intelligent being that can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted.

But if the 'being's' presence could be experienced directly--internally--the evolution of such belief becomes much more plausible, doesn't it? This, I believe, is exactly what did happen, far back at the dawn of human consciousness.

When consciousness and rationality first emerged, their sovereignty over the body they inhabited was far from secure. It is still insecure today, of course--human beings remain prey to overmastering emotions and drives that arise from unconscious roots and which reason is often helpless to control. But now we have tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution to help modulate and restrain these impulses.

Back when reason, and consciousness of the self/other dichotomy, were still in their evolutionary infancy, these instinctive or irrational impulses, still powerful enough to unseat reason today, must have been utterly overwhelming. Anger, fear, lust, envy, ecstasy and the like would not have seemed to 'belong' to the consciousness that 'owned' the body in which they manifested. Instead, they would seem to invade the body from 'somewhere else', somewhere beyond the conscious self. In time, they would come to be personified as external, invisible beings, as this makes it easier for consciousness and reason to remain integrated in the face of such threats ('the Devil made me do it' is easier to deal with than 'I can't control my devilish impulses'). This would have had obvious survival advantages to the body they inhabited and the genes it carried. The evidence for such a syndrome lies in the fact that primitive peoples around the world--and not-so-primitive ones, too--still manifest it today.

Such, I believe, is the mechanism that gives rise to what we call inspiration, possession, prophetic trance and so on.

Similarly, the natural external conditions that opposed human will and desire--the drought that caused famine, the animal that couldn't be trapped or hunted without peril, the forest fire that drove the tribe from its range--were also personified. They became gods, elemental spirits and the like. The distinction between these external powers and the ones which took direct possession of people 'from within' was not always strongly made.

I am strongly persuaded that such are the roots of religious belief.

Atheists must deal with the issue of deific genesis if they want to successfully debunk God.

Absolutely. See above.

As it is, human history, anthropology, and even modern neuroscience hasn't offered any compelling argument that any corporeal brain can find a means of inventing what has never been imagined.

I think you make more of this than it is. The human brain is constantly inventing what has never before been imagined. It is what we humans specialize in. Anyway, the ideas I've articulated above are hardly original--I'm sure their derivation from the work of Carl Jung is evident in my exegesis.

Originally posted by Astyanax

reply to post by NorEaster

 

You have to wonder just how instinctive it actually is to believe in, or even worship, an intelligent being that can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted.

But if the 'being's' presence could be experienced directly--internally--the evolution of such belief becomes much more plausible, doesn't it? This, I believe, is exactly what did happen, far back at the dawn of human consciousness.

When consciousness and rationality first emerged, their sovereignty over the body they inhabited was far from secure. It is still insecure today, of course--human beings remain prey to overmastering emotions and drives that arise from unconscious roots and which reason is often helpless to control. But now we have tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution to help modulate and restrain these impulses.

Back when reason, and consciousness of the self/other dichotomy, were still in their evolutionary infancy, these instinctive or irrational impulses, still powerful enough to unseat reason today, must have been utterly overwhelming. Anger, fear, lust, envy, ecstasy and the like would not have seemed to 'belong' to the consciousness that 'owned' the body in which they manifested. Instead, they would seem to invade the body from 'somewhere else', somewhere beyond the conscious self. In time, they would come to be personified as external, invisible beings, as this makes it easier for consciousness and reason to remain integrated in the face of such threats ('the Devil made me do it' is easier to deal with than 'I can't control my devilish impulses'). This would have had obvious survival advantages to the body they inhabited and the genes it carried. The evidence for such a syndrome lies in the fact that primitive peoples around the world--and not-so-primitive ones, too--still manifest it today.

Such, I believe, is the mechanism that gives rise to what we call inspiration, possession, prophetic trance and so on.

Similarly, the natural external conditions that opposed human will and desire--the drought that caused famine, the animal that couldn't be trapped or hunted without peril, the forest fire that drove the tribe from its range--were also personified. They became gods, elemental spirits and the like. The distinction between these external powers and the ones which took direct possession of people 'from within' was not always strongly made.

I am strongly persuaded that such are the roots of religious belief.

I can see your point if you only examine the specifics of each belief and dismiss the genesis of belief in what cannot be perceived. Regardless of internally generated stimuli, the transition from what can be perceived to what cannot be perceived is an enormous transition. There is no "god-circuit" in the human brain, and there is nothing that can be offered to organically explain why humanity reached beyond what exists to explain what it could not readily explain. Even emotions are holistic in their impact, and do not suggest an external self to the primitive brain. The idea of a separate self from the corporeal body is a really sophisticated notion. I might even suspect that it occurred after the concept of a non-corporeal realm was fairly well established (especially if the Old versus New Testament comparisons contain any clues). The external self was pioneered by Plato (that we're aware of), and that was pretty far down the development chain.

You have to accept the proven fact that corporeal circuitry within the human brain is the same as the corporeal circuitry within the nearest primate relative, with the normal variance one would find in a brain that is a lot more capable. Fundamentally, the signals move from section to section in the same manner. And yet, the world of the human being is completely different than the world of every other thinking creature on this planet. The comparison isn't a matter of degree of intellect, but a real apples and oranges kind of thing. An increase in self awareness simply can't account for this kind of extreme existential departure. It must include an empirical factor that became a deeply embedded environmental fact at some point.

Granted, the embedding process can be easily explained, but not the initial concept. It directly contradicts everything that conscious, aware corporeal existence insists upon, and there's no linkage between self awareness and the personification of that which simply can't be perceived or experienced. In fact, self awareness lessens the impact of that which can't be perceived, since self awareness is heightened and extended perception. The realization of self is complicated enough, and naturally puts that self in the center of reality if any center is required. Manufacturing a competing or dominating entity that can't be experienced or perceived just doesn't have the "feel" of natural progression to it. Not if we look at how other psychological and intellectual developments occurred. There's a link that's just not there unless the possibility of an initiating and instructive event is included.

Atheists must deal with the issue of deific genesis if they want to successfully debunk God.

Absolutely. See above.

I'm sorry, but the explanation you offered simply doesn't deal with the question of how such a notion could have initiated. The sense of self - I'm assuming that you mean the natural sense of knowing who/what you are, where you are, and how you fit into the whole of the world around you - doesn't extract a person from their body or their world to the extent that the primitive mind would naturally (or unnaturally) assume a non-corporeal realm to exist. If anything, it causes one to examine the physical, sensational aspects of the corporeal realm, as historical evidence suggests that primitive humanity did. After all, the corporeal world is extremely compelling to the corporeal being. It is at hand, it has texture, color, smell, taste, hot/cold, and the aware being's own body affects it directly. Where is the impetus to imagine that there could be anything that cannot be touched, smelled, seen, tasted or heard, and moreover where is the drive to make that unsubstantiated realm superior to what can be perceived, affected and experienced? The suggestion that the capacity to consciously experience corporeal existence somehow caused the human brain to invent a realm that can't be experienced doesn't really connect the dots in any way that I can logically perceive no matter how hard I try.

As it is, human history, anthropology, and even modern neuroscience hasn't offered any compelling argument that any corporeal brain can find a means of inventing what has never been imagined.

I think you make more of this than it is. The human brain is constantly inventing what has never before been imagined. It is what we humans specialize in. Anyway, the ideas I've articulated above are hardly original--I'm sure their derivation from the work of Carl Jung is evident in my exegesis.

I don't see how this aspect can be overstated. The human brain is not actually creative. It is brilliantly innovative. I wrote and sold songs for 35 years, and have been writing essays, short stories and books for the last 5 years. During that entire stretch, I've been a professional marketer in the software industry to pay the bills. My whole life has been centered around the issue of creativity. Nothing is ever created in a vacuum. Take anything that is groundbreaking apart and you'll find the linkage to what's already been around. Yes, sometimes it will be a creative synthesis of two or more disparate items, or possibly a new way of looking at something that was a failed derivative of something else that may or may not have made much noise at one time or another. It may even catch you by surprise, but if you do the work, you'll discover where the author of the new unheard of whatever-it-is found the pieces to build it.

What you will never find is a truly original notion. Not in the sense that it emerged free from an existing influence. The original notion of a non-corporeal entity that is external and directive, or even able to impact the corporeal realm - hell, even the original notion that there is a corporeal realm, as opposed to a non-corporeal realm - is a notion that is so absolutely unconnected to anything in the natural experience of a primitive human being, even to imagine such a thing is to break from all empirical confines in a way that has never happened since. As I said, the linkage simply doesn't exist, and the human brain's version of creativity depends on that linkage, regardless of how well it is masked in the final product.

I don't know. I have my own ideas about how humanity got the heads up, and it doesn't include a bearded guy on a clouded throne, but without an instructive initiation, I'm at a loss for how the primitive human being (regardless of what planet the original one sat on) came up with the completely unique idea of non-existent existence, let alone how he/she determined that it was supreme.

reply to post by NorEaster

Regardless of internally generated stimuli, the transition from what can be perceived to what cannot be perceived is an enormous transition.

But my point is that is was perceived. It was perceived--no, suffered--as a takeover of the body 'owned' by the ego by another power. A little hard to miss--or ignore.

The idea of a separate self from the corporeal body is a really sophisticated notion.

On the contrary, it is a common idea among primitive folk, who incorporate this separate self in a 'bush soul', guardian spirit (often ancestral) or totemic animal. These are prehistoric concepts.

You have to accept the proven fact that corporeal circuitry within the human brain is the same as the corporeal circuitry within the nearest primate relative... And yet, the world of the human being is completely different than the world of every other thinking creature on this planet.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept this. I do not believe the difference is one of kind but merely of degree. The point is highly arguable, however. There is no final word from science or philosophy on this. Various religions, on the other hand, tend to make much of the distinction. I regard that as a violation of the Copernican principle.

The realization of self is complicated enough, and naturally puts that self in the center of reality if any center is required. Manufacturing a competing or dominating entity that can't be experienced or perceived just doesn't have the "feel" of natural progression to it.

Actually, the creation of such archetypal entities appears to be part of the process of self-realization. This is made very clear in, inter alia, Jung's Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. In neuropsychological terms, one might regard an archetype as something created by consciousness to help deal with the experience of the operations of instinct.

I'm sorry, but the explanation you offered simply doesn't deal with the question of how such a notion could have initiated.

I'm sorry too, because I believe it does. The objections you have raised have not persuaded me otherwise.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Regardless of internally generated stimuli, the transition from what can be perceived to what cannot be perceived is an enormous transition.

But my point is that is was perceived. It was perceived--no, suffered--as a takeover of the body 'owned' by the ego by another power. A little hard to miss--or ignore.

To translate that experience into the existence of what cannot be perceived is the difficult transition. Not the experience of disorientation or personal distress. You have to provide linkage, which you haven't provided.

The idea of a separate self from the corporeal body is a really sophisticated notion.

On the contrary, it is a common idea among primitive folk, who incorporate this separate self in a 'bush soul', guardian spirit (often ancestral) or totemic animal. These are prehistoric concepts.

The presence of these notions within primitive cultures does not make these notions less sophisticated. This is the issue. The sophistication of these notions is at odds with the sophistication of the people who somehow invented them. There is an unlikely schism here, and again, you've provided no linkage between the mundane nature of hand-to-mouth existence and this absolutely incompatible notion of a non-corporeal realm. Without that natural linkage, an instructive impetus is required.

You have to accept the proven fact that corporeal circuitry within the human brain is the same as the corporeal circuitry within the nearest primate relative... And yet, the world of the human being is completely different than the world of every other thinking creature on this planet.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept this. I do not believe the difference is one of kind but merely of degree. The point is highly arguable, however. There is no final word from science or philosophy on this. Various religions, on the other hand, tend to make much of the distinction. I regard that as a violation of the Copernican principle.

Please provide the "God-circuit" then. And no, the pineal gland exists in many mammal brains. Hardly the seat of the soul.

The realization of self is complicated enough, and naturally puts that self in the center of reality if any center is required. Manufacturing a competing or dominating entity that can't be experienced or perceived just doesn't have the "feel" of natural progression to it.

Actually, the creation of such archetypal entities appears to be part of the process of self-realization. This is made very clear in, inter alia, Jung's Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. In neuropsychological terms, one might regard an archetype as something created by consciousness to help deal with the experience of the operations of instinct.

You can claim this, but precedence is required for the construction of an archetype. Humans have never been very original with their inventions. Even the persona of Jesus had centuries of precedence. There is no precedence possible for the notion of a non-corporeal realm. It is completely counterintuitive, and when we examine anything that is created, it always (yes, always) features linkage to what is known and accepted at some level. Non-corporeal existence has no such linkage, and there is a wide open hole if the demand is that it spontaneously originated within the corporeal realm through invention by primitive corporeal people.

I'm sorry, but the explanation you offered simply doesn't deal with the question of how such a notion could have initiated.

I'm sorry too, because I believe it does. The objections you have raised have not persuaded me otherwise.

I only ask for the linkage. Not asking much if you're completely dedicated to this idea of an organically manufactured notion of non-corporeal existence. I think that something happened to "instruct" the human being in the concept of intelligent existence that cannot be perceived. I believe that both the instructor and the instructed misunderstood the nature of what was being shared, but that's how all our knowledge concerning physical existence started out anyway, so no surprises there.

If you can logically link hand-to-mouth primitive existence with the invention of esoteric, non-corporeal intelligent existence, then I'll consider it. I'm not unreasonable. I just need more than vague assertions or references to a mystic psychiatrist who studied his own hallucinations for clues about the nature of the conscious self. I know people who do that and I'm not impressed with them either.

reply to post by NorEaster

Fair enough if it sounds far-fetched to you, but that doesn't mean it actually is.

Also, please refer the other, more orthodox ideas about the evolution of religion I mentioned in my earlier post.

You don't need god circuits in the brain and pineal glands to come up with the concept of invisible beings--the idea that every human thought can be mapped onto a specific set of neurons, or even a specific sequence of neuronic activity, is just science fiction. Besides, the world is full of invisible forces.

Pared down to its essence, your argument is simply 'primitive man was too stupid to come up with the idea of invisible beings.' I think you do my ancestors an injustice.

reply to post by Astyanax

Pared down to its essence, your argument is simply 'primitive man was too stupid to come up with the idea of invisible beings.' I think you do my ancestors an injustice.

The Straw Man fallacy

is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

SOURCE