Why do people believe in IDIOTIC things?

[iNow]

I'm pretty sure that those who did actually pursue valid data had a better chance at survival than those who did not.

I think I understand how you arrived at this point, as it closely aligns with my own priorities on the world, but I question it's validity in context of our ancestral past.

 

Ask yourself... Which would result in greater reproductive success...

 

One who acts on their own rationality despite the groups collectively accepted "truths?"

 

Or...

 

One who aligns with the group despite their own rationality?

 

 

To be fair, this is not a "one or the other" question, as clearly both approaches would have shown success in terms of natural selection. However, the question becomes which one was MOST successful?

 

I ascribe to the belief that the power of the many out performs the power of the one, despite the acute success which may result from the brilliance of that one.

 

 

 

Otherwise, how could we have developed agriculture and astronomy back in the stone ages.

You're actually supporting my argument here. Agriculture only works in groups. While the practices themselves were developed by creative and insightful individuals, the act of intentional agriculture only led to reproductive success when implemented by the group.

 

 

I think religion evolved directly out of the need to feel connected to the natural world, and to more easily give themselves the belief that they had some significance to the universe around them.

I agree that this was part of it, but not all. I think that religion evolved directly out of our tendency toward social grouping, and increased reproductive benefit of associating with a group for protection, survival, and resources. Those that disasociated from the group were left on their own, and tended not to have offspring as successfully as those which stuck closely with the group... even when that group espoused views contrary to their own rationality.

 

 

 

Also, religion and spirituality can serve as a powerful motivation and a way to help people to cooperate much more and bind them into groups.

Indeed, and I've never doubted this contention.

 

 

That, and combined with the fact that back in the hunter gatherer days they knew so little about the world (and information transfer was virtually non-existent), so it is not inherently irrational.

If you are saying that religion served as a method of teaching and ensuring behavior that was ultimately beneficial to the group, then I agree. Regardless, my point was that *perhaps* the purposeful avoidance of rational data evolved due to it's benefit in packs, whereby individual rationality (while beneficial) was not nearly as beneficial as behavior which protected one's ties to the larger collective.

 

 

Well, not to upset you or anything, but given your additude around religious beliefs I don't think that post had much creativity in it. It sounds a little bit more like cognitive dissonance.

 

Whoa... I said I welcomed flames, but I wasn't expecting that. It's cool if you disagree with my stance on religion, but it hurts when you attack my creativitiy and suggest that there is a discrepancy between what I believe, know and value, and persuasive information that calls these into question.

 

I see no evidence calling my beliefs, knowledge, and values into question, and hence I don't see the cognitive dissonance you've implied.

 

 

 

Last... you must be some sort of high paid art critic to call into question the creativity of that post. I came up with that on the fly... Like, literally, as I typed, that was just flowing through me. That was some Cannonball Adderly shit right there.

[Reaper]

I think I understand how you arrived at this point, as it closely aligns with my own priorities on the world, but I question it's validity in context of our ancestral past.

 

Ask yourself... Which would result in greater reproductive success...

 

One who acts on their own rationality despite the groups collectively accepted "truths?"

 

Or...

 

One who aligns with the group despite their own rationality?

 

 

To be fair, this is not a "one or the other" question, as clearly both approaches would have shown success in terms of natural selection. However, the question becomes which one was MOST successful?

 

I ascribe to the belief that the power of the many out performs the power of the one, despite the acute success which may result from the brilliance of that one.

 

This assumes that religion is inherently irrational though. While today's dominant religions may be more or less far removed from reality, prehistoric religions were much different. Paleontological and anthropological studies indicate that in the distant past the religions were much more animalistic and/or related to the environment around them. Indeed, you can see this in the beliefs of indiginous populations all around the world, ranging from the tribes in Africa to Alborigines to Native Americans. So its easy to see how they could have developed in the distant past.

 

And second, diverging from the group wouldn't have led to an instant dead end. If the person in question was clever enough he could move up the ranks and become one of the elite, knocking out the current tribal leader and therefore increasing his/her own reproductive success. Likewise, those who diverged from the group might have developed followers, or found like-minded people in neighboring tribes in more densely populated areas. This behavior is observed in other primates and some other social animals. Or, if their creative and rational thinking did lead to some benefit for the tribe, even if it doesn't diverge from the ideals of the group, it would have boosted their reproductive success.

 

And even if rationality and creativity and critical thinking offered only a slight advantage, that still would have been enough to wipe out anyone else who didn't have that in a very short amount of time. So to answer your question, it would seem that rationality is indeed more successful even though it may have only offered a slight advantage. As time progressed, creativity and rationality of course became more and more important. In today's world, rationality and critical thinking is vital if our species is to survive at all....

 

 

 

You're actually supporting my argument here. Agriculture only works in groups. While the practices themselves were developed by creative and insightful individuals, the act of intentional agriculture only led to reproductive success when implemented by the group.

 

No, read the above post. Just because it was done in groups doesn't mean that rationality and the ability to use valid data is non-existent or were suspended. After all, many of our projects, such as ecological restoration or the International Space Station are done in groups. Very large ones at that. But none of those projects are religious in nature, nor were the groupings, and both require the group to have creativity and be much more insightful. The same principle can be applied to hunting or tribal alliances too, if speaking in the context of prehistoric times.

 

 

I agree that this was part of it, but not all. I think that religion evolved directly out of our tendency toward social grouping, and increased reproductive benefit of associating with a group for protection, survival, and resources. Those that disasociated from the group were left on their own, and tended not to have offspring as successfully as those which stuck closely with the group... even when that group espoused views contrary to their own rationality.

 

Well, I do agree with some of this, that it was partly of our tendancy toward social grouping. But I never disputed that though. But, as I pointed out before, disassociating from the group did not necessarily lead to decreased chances of offspring.

 

If you are saying that religion served as a method of teaching and ensuring behavior that was ultimately beneficial to the group, then I agree. Regardless, my point was that *perhaps* the purposeful avoidance of rational data evolved due to it's benefit in packs, whereby individual rationality (while beneficial) was not nearly as beneficial as behavior which protected one's ties to the larger collective.

 

Well, yes I did say that, but again read the above about rational data.

 

 

Whoa... I said I welcomed flames, but I wasn't expecting that. It's cool if you disagree with my stance on religion, but it hurts when you attack my creativitiy and suggest that there is a discrepancy between what I believe, know and value, and persuasive information that calls these into question.

 

I see no evidence calling my beliefs, knowledge, and values into question, and hence I don't see the cognitive dissonance you've implied.

 

I wasn't necessarily attacking your creativity in general, but if you felt that way then I apologize. I was just saying not to flatter yourself. Given your additude with religious beliefs in general, what I was saying is that, that sort of hypothesis was...predictable. To be creative means to develop a unique or a uncommon idea. For example, the ideas in special and general relativity can be considered creative because the principles behind it were created by people who were taught about ether and the idea of a clockwork, absolute universe. Your hypothesis however appears to be based on your (unsubstantiated) beliefs about religion or people who are religious. Not that its a bad thing, but its something that wasn't that uncommon by like minded individuals, religious or otherwise.

 

 

Last... you must be some sort of high paid art critic to call into question the creativity of that post. I came up with that on the fly... Like, literally, as I typed, that was just flowing through me. That was some Cannonball Adderly shit right there.

 

Well, I'm sure that people who get lamblasted on American Idol felt the same way too>.

[iNow]

Thanks for the response Lockheed. I appreciate your thoughts very much. I just want to clarify two things.

 

First, I wasn't specifically referring to religions, just used that as an example of group behavior. My focus was on the group itself, not religions. However, looking back, I can see how this wasn't entirely clear.

 

Second, overall, I was not arguing that rationality versus submission to group will were mutually exclusive, only that (of the two) submission to group will was likely the predominant factor leading to increased reproductive success. If this premise is correct, then it speaks to the relative impact of one's desire to be part of a group versus expressing one's own rationalilty.

 

 

Again, the post was not (intentionally) based on any stance I hold on religion, but a speculation rooted in my studies of evolutionary psychology. Group behavior was enormously beneficial, and this extends far beyond just humans.

 

Rationality is good too, but I was attempting to propose (per the thread topic) why the tendency *MAY* exist in modern times to actively avoid rational data.

 

Cheers.

[Reaper]

Thanks for the response Lockheed. I appreciate your thoughts very much. I just want to clarify two things.

 

First, I wasn't specifically referring to religions, just used that as an example of group behavior. My focus was on the group itself, not religions. However, looking back, I can see how this wasn't entirely clear.

 

Second, overall, I was not arguing that rationality versus submission to group will were mutually exclusive, only that (of the two) submission to group will was likely the predominant factor leading to increased reproductive success. If this premise is correct, then it speaks to the relative impact of one's desire to be part of a group versus expressing one's own rationalilty.

 

Again, the post was not (intentionally) based on any stance I hold on religion, but a speculation rooted in my studies of evolutionary psychology. Group behavior was enormously beneficial, and this extends far beyond just humans.

 

Thanks for being more clear then. I think the answer to this is one of those "it depends" sort of thing. While submission to the group does obviously bring in some advantages (such as protection from predators), I'm not so sure if it was the predominant trait. To me, its a bit like asking whether if red hair or blonde hair yields a better reproductive success. I'm pretty certain that rationality did play a huge part in our evolution. After all, certain basic technologies such as fire manipulation and stone tools predate modern humans by hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Rationality is good too, but I was attempting to propose (per the thread topic) why the tendency *MAY* exist in modern times to actively avoid rational data.

 

Cheers.

 

I think it has much more to do with the fact that most people out there don't have the capability to distinguish B.S. from sound science (or their skills are otherwise inadequate), along with the other reasons that I listed much earlier in post 23. That, and the human brain is very gullible.

 

You should watch this video, it offers some good insight as to why people believe in crazy things:

 

And, it does include a talk about cognitive biases and how they affect our thinking, even if they are unintentional....

[iNow]

You should watch this video, it offers some good insight as to why people believe in crazy things:

 

Haha... Mike Shermer. Absolutely. I've seen hit talk at TED a few times already. Always fun when it appears in another post.

 

 

"I guess you can only have one virgin mary per building."

[Asher]

What I'm asking is what type of people -- or rather, WHAT CAUSES A PERSON to take such insanely extravagant and stupid belief in the first place, and then hold it with such conviction?

 

Short-answer: heightened esteem of one's own cleverness. It's not terribly dissimilar in principle to the same sort of rigidity you'd find in their most obsessively rigid critics. If it becomes clinically debilitating, it could be a point for diagnosing one of several psychiatric disorders.

 

Yeah, I think it's more than that -- it's "how can an intelligent person not require compelling evidence or proof for such extravagant theory" is what I'm concerned with.

 

If many people did, there'd be a lot more subjectivists out there right now. The fact is that few if any people have the time or inclination not to take things for granted. Your average Joe has no more reason to trust scientists and engineers over soothsayers. If he dwelt on it as darlingly as this truthism guy does in this particular article, he'd probably distrust just about every bit of his everyday knowledge. Same goes for you.

[Edtharan]

If he dwelt on it as darlingly as this truthism guy does in this particular article, he'd probably distrust just about every bit of his everyday knowledge.

It is actually advantagoius in an evolutionary sense. If we needed "proof" tha that movement in the grass was a lion and not the wind, then we would all just be so much lion snacks. However, if we can "jump to the conclusion" that is ti a lion nad not the wind, theneven if it is the wind, we haven't lost much. If it is a lion, we have just saved our own life.

 

Also, if we are told that a plant is poisionous, then if we had to find "proof" and eat it (or get someone else to eat it), then we would not likelt survive very long.

 

So accepting what someone tells us (especially in childhood) becomes a good survival instinct. IF we thiink that information will aid our survival, then we are more willing to accept it.

 

The "Appeal to Emotion" is a Logical Fallacy, but it is one of the strongest fallacies and the easiest to make.

[Reaper]

I think this passage is appropriate for this thread:

 

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

—Alice in Wonderland.

[mooeypoo]

I think this passage is appropriate for this thread:

 

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

—Alice in Wonderland.

 

I'm so framing that and hanging it in my office...

[Psyber]

People believe all sorts of strange things if they want to enough and in the end there is no absolute proof that cannot be challenged somehow if you are keen to find a way to support one or other side of the debate about any given issue. Truth is what was recorded by whoever won the last big fight.

 

Me. I don't believe anything until I experience it, and not always then!

[abskebabs]

Do you think some delusions may be beneficial(to a limited extent)?

 

I've posted about this before; but I remember New Scientist articles a while back talking about research showing things like women who thought they were pregnant experiencing greater happiness, and I guess mental health while they still believed in their delusion. This is the placebo effect to cut te story short, but mental health does make an impact on physical health right? I was under the impression that's the reason why they're now trying to make NHS wards look a little less drab and depressing nowadays, as it helps speed up recovery time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

A similiar argument could be made with religion in some cases, if I know that my death isn't the end, or let's say my life is pretty awful but it may cheer me up and help me get through the day if I know there's a heaven.

 

I just get the thought in my head when some people expound th reasons they are Atheist, that you know it's easy for them to live with and declare such a conclusion, compared with someone in a much more desperate background. I'm an agnostic atheist(as defined by others on this forum), but I do respect THIS aspect of religion.

 

However I get just as annoyed as anyone else on this forum, when people will try to miscontrue facts and reasoning, or even worse, lie about them to support their prejudices.