The Science of Belief

by LittleToe 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Anitar
    Anitar

    Little Toe:

    I'm not sure how much this relates to your topic, but I have a question for you.

    Is it possible for a person to live their entire life and be totally unaware of the world around them?

    I'm sorry that sounds a little vague. I'm referring to someone like a devout jehovah witnesses in reference to your comments about the human psyche's desire to know about the enviornment. It seems to me that my mom, who is now 60 years old, seems to know nothing more about life than she did when she was 15. I know that sounds quite harsh but I can't help what I see. She does nothing except the witness work and barely takes care of herself and frequently forgets how to think and behave like a norman person.

    I ask because I've always firmly believed in making myself better than what I am, and to learn something new everyday. My mom doesn't believe in such things.

    Anitar

  • skyking
    skyking

    Belief is fine to the Believer but is foolish to the non believer. Exsample the Dooms Day Cult that thought the Aliens were going to take them up in a ship with the arival of a comet. Two people that were part of this Cult were interviewed on a News program. They were brain washed so completely even at the time of the interview, Both was ashamed they did not have the faith to die with the others that day. The interviewer asked why? The man ex-cult member said becasue of all the proof they were correct is why.

    Faith trumps proof everytime.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    LT

    Anything is possible, but your question presumes suppression, conscious or unconscious. I think that's a specious starting point, unless you are going to take the tack that we were all once connected to the Divine and individually departed and suppressed the memory.

    Collectively we were all connected to the Divine, through Adam. Then sin came into the world through one person (Romans5:11) , and everyone was condemned through one failure (Romans5:18), so clearly, through one person's disobedience humanity becamesinful.(Romans5:19)

    Is knowledge (including relationship, not just intellectual awareness) inate or by revelation?

    What can be known about God is clear to them (people) because he has made it clear to them. From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse. They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness. (Romans1:19, 20, 21)

    To answer your question, I don't think I can argue with God, its says clearly revealed! I think you are trying to make excuses for people that God says have no excuse.
    To know someone in a relational sense don't we at least need to know in an intellectual sense that they at least exist? Otherwise, how do you interpret Rom.10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
    Rom.10:17 is clearly talking about faith in the gospel (death, burial and resurrection of Christ). Not faith that God exists. One forms a relationship with someone he trusts and believes the person has his best interest in mind, not with someone walking down the street whom he has never met but he knows exists because he saw them across the street.
    Hence I would posit that there is at least a minimal amount of knowledge needed to form a catalyst
    I would say that everyone possesses more than enough "knowledge" to form your catalyst.
    I think that's an awful analogy. Unbelief isn't an addiction, it's a state.

    As for the smoking analogy, it works for me because everyone "knows" it kills, but people do it anyway because they don't want to "believe" it will kill them.

    To paraphrase Pilate, in your opinion, "what is [God's] truth?"

    My "opinion" does not matter. John 14:6 Jesus answered him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.

  • exjdub
    exjdub

    For instance, there's been much ado about Chinese medicine. And I think we have much to learn from their practice. But without applying stringent science to their methods, all we have is testimonies and hearsay. We don't know WHAT the active ingredient is, and we don't know WHY it works. Why does it work some times and not others?

    jgnat,

    Once again, jgnat, one of your posts has hit me right in the gut. Your comment made me re-think what I said on another thread. I mentioned that I could not understand how anyone could buy back into Christianity after handing over our minds to the JW's. However your post started me thinking because I have had a very profound and powerful experience with acupuncture and Chines medicine. I don't know how it works, but I believe in it because of the experience. I have tried to share that experience with other people when they have been through numerous medical tests and are at a dead end, but they always look at me like I am nuts, or that I just don't understand.

    I now have to retract my statement about Christianity, and faith in general, because who am I to question someone who has had a profound and moving experience with their faith? I can only comment that I have not had that experience. So, your question about why something works sometimes and not others really got me thinking.

    Once again I have had it proven that the surer I am about things...the less I know. What a gift to be able to have so many different views on subjects and walk away reflecting on something that I was so sure about previously. Thank you all for that gift. Having my thinking turned upside down used to be very troubling to me, but now I find it exhilerating.

    I also wanted to thank Ross (LT) for a another thougtful subject. Well written, as usual, and always a lightning rod for discussion.

    exjdub

  • Terry
    Terry

    I'll bet you think you know what I'm going to say already.

    Consider this.

    How do you decide/measure which pie tastes best at the County Fair? You taste it and go with your personal preference. Simple. If enough of you agree; you have a Blue Ribbon awarded and that particular pie is deemed "best".

    Agreement=Best

    That won't work on matters which aren't mere opinion or preference, however.

    If a billion people decided to vote on repealing the law of gravity we'd not find ourselves floating in mid air.

    That is the chief difference between matters of taste and opinion and matters of fact.

    Then there are the groups who decide, "Yes, we shall repeal the laws of gravity" and then simply declare that it is accomplished! Certain gurus do this. They teach their students that you can levitate with proper meditation procedures. You can see the photo of them levitating in the books they write. Of course, it is a brief moment in time when the shutter snaps as they BOUNCE in the air. The photo freezes the "levitation" as "proof" and the students are convinced it is possible as well as documented.

    Until and unless we carefully distinguish between what we willfully decide is true and separate that decision and belief from contradictory realities we are only playing a game with ourselves. If you join a group that will automatically reinforce the same beliefs you have; a happy group delusion ensues and they call it RELIGION.

    Now, there is a third thing I might mention. Reinforcement of enjoyment.

    If you see a comedy alone in a theatre it isn't nearly as funny as when there is a vast audience screaming hysterically.

    That reinforcement modifies the level on which our enjoyment can be accessed and experienced. You might say all those positive "votes" make what is happening absolutely "true" where True=Funny.

    But, we all know that.

    There is a scale from black to white in all things. Where we choose to stand pretty much creates our SENSE of reality. It doesn't create reality. No. Just OUR particular sense of it.

    Science attempts to define the entire scale from black to white and assign numbers to the placement of value.

    Agree or not; doesn't matter. What is IS. What is not; is NOT. Opinions don't count.

    So then, belief is a most useful tool for maximizing any situation. We can modify how we feel about something simply by deciding to. That is terrific!

    You look at your boyfriend and decide his crooked nose is "cute". You look at yourself in the mirror and decide you look pretty good for your age. Much more practical than breaking up with old crooked nose or joining a gym or paying for a makeover. Choice is a lovely option.

  • bernadette
    bernadette

    My intuition tells me that I'm jumping in way over my head. But Terry your post got me thinking. For me the science of belief is more akin to the science of love for instance or the science justice. Am i makinfg sense.......

  • kid-A
    kid-A

    "Great strides are being made in exploring the "outer" world, and there's no doubt about the tangible benefits this has produced. Unfortunately our understanding of the "inner" world is atrophying through materialist neglect."

    Not sure what you mean LT. As a neuroscientist, I can tell you, there are hundreds of thousands of us studying the "inner world" you seem to be referring to. There are even neuroimaging studies going on as we speak looking at specific brain regions that are activated during religious experiences. This is in addition to the thousands of high quality journal articles published every year in the cognitive neuroscience field examining the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology of subjective "inner" psychological phenomena.

    While human "consciousness" as an emergent 'cortical' phenomena still is elusive in the field (although there are hundreds of competing theories) we most certainly know which neural regions are essential for the generation of conscious experience (e.g. the Reticular Activating System), as well as non-conscious phenomena (dreaming, sub-conscious processing, memory encoding, etc). We can map out emotional experiences and memories, and being in the mental health profession, you certainly know we can modulate with remarkable precision the experience of emotion with some very simple pharmacological compounds. So, how is this being "neglected" by material scientists such as myself?

    I would raise another point regarding the issue of "belief". The stability of any belief is wholly dependent upon memory. Beliefs are cognitive 'structures' with a physical correlate in the brain. Memory, as you know, is wholly dependent on specific neural circuits. Unfortunately, as we are beginning to realize, "memory" itself is a COMPLETELY plastic phenomena, encoded by malleable biochemical events across synapses. They exhibit very little stability over time, are completely modulated, modified (and or falsified!) and reformulated over time and following emotional events.

    Given the plastic, unstable nature of memory, how can any "belief" based upon "experience" be believed......

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    In case you're wondering, I decided to give the thread a couple of days to mature without my influence. I'd rather other folks got to further develop it, instead of me feeling that I'm in any way dominating the flow of the discussion.

    So far so good, guys. I'm really enjoying reading it. Every contribution is a gem

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc

    LT: Prayer is at least self-affirmation and/or a placebo; at best, communication with the Divine. To that end surely even the materialist can see some benefit in it, even if it isn't their tool of choice?

    Yes, the materialist will see some benefit in prayer, but, mostly in its observable effect in others, not nessasaraly a benefit directly for the materialist. Unless of course we start considering other forms of self-affirmation, be it daily journals, meditation or self promises and the like to be included in the 'prayer' category.

    steve

  • bernadette
    bernadette

    I would raise another point regarding the issue of "belief". The stability of any belief is wholly dependent upon memory. Beliefs are cognitive 'structures' with a physical correlate in the brain. Memory, as you know, is wholly dependent on specific neural circuits. Unfortunately, as we are beginning to realize, "memory" itself is a COMPLETELY plastic phenomena, encoded by malleable biochemical events across synapses. They exhibit very little stability over time, are completely modulated, modified (and or falsified!) and reformulated over time and following emotional events.

    Given the plastic, unstable nature of memory, how can any "belief" based upon "experience" be believed......

    In view of the above I think its truly remarkable then that we even have a consciousness and an ongoing identity at all! the fact is though that we do

    (sorry got a little confused with the highlighters)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit