Another bluegenes Vs RAZD Great Debate and related Peanut Gallery spin-off topic.
Humans believe in the existence of supernatural beings. There is a vast array of evidence on which to conclude that this is an indisputable fact both now and in the past. All over the world and throughout the ages people have believed in the existence of the supernatural.
So we have an observable phenomenon (human belief in the existence of the supernatural) that requires scientific explanation.
The question posed in this thread is therefore: How do we scientifically investigate the cause of this observable phenomenon?
Aren't you really asking how one scientifically approaches the question of whether the observed phenomenon of human belief in the supernatural has any legitimate empirical support?
No.
No I am asking what the scientific support for the naturalistic alternatives are. I am asking how we scientifically investigate the reasons people believe in the things that they do. In Message 1292 Mod writes:
Mod writes:
The proclivity for humans to embellish, confabulate, imagine, speculate. The proclivity for confirmation bias in superstitious behaviour and beliefs. The hyper active agency detection of human minds, the need for 'false positives' in survival. The tendency to pay more mental attention to entities that are minimally counter-intuitive. The sheer number of conceptions of supernatural beings which have been shown false by science. The fact that no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural entity has been forthcoming in an age where we figured out time dilation and quantum physics.
The very existence of 'wishful thinking' that you point out and the very 'wishful' nature of many supernatural concepts. The hierarchical mind set of primates. Our strong desire for narrative, even or especially ones that circumvent our common notions in interesting ways.
The connection between epilepsy and religious ideas, the common content of delusions and so on and so forth.
There are plenty of psychological effects that we know of that could explain how humans can inadvertently create and believe in the existence of unseen beings.
This is a fairly succinct summary of the sort of things I had in mind when proposing this topic.
Using the same techniques developed in psychology, and being developed in evolutionary psychology, to investigate all other human behaviours, of course.
Indeedy.
But we need details. Both the below have been posted (by Mod in the Peanut gallery) elsewhere. But they should get this thread going:
The findings emerging from this cognitive evolutionary approach challenge two central tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.
Knowing, even accepting these conclusions is unlikely to undermine religious commitment. Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions hardly the easiest ideology to propagate
Or J Anderson Thomson gives a good overview for the hypothesis currently being explored by cognitive scientists, psychiatrists etc. where religion acts a super stimulator for our evolved brain (much like soft drinks and big macs are superstimulating versions of protein and sugar which we evolved to pursue). Supernatural agency is part of this this theory. Here is a somewhat informal presentation of the ideas in case you hadn't watched it.
So you can understand if I ask you what you think you want to investigate?
This thread asks what science has to say about the question of why people believe in the existence of supernatural beings. Things like Hyperactive Agency Detection are an obvious starting point in such discussions.
JJ writes:
First, you cannot investigate a belief - by the nature of belief.
Of course you can invenstigate reasons and causes for belief. If I asked you why people used to believe that the Earth was flat you would have no problem with the question being posed.
Here I am asking why it is that humans believe in supernatural beings and seeking the scientific answer to this question.
If I believe that it will rain tomorrow, then what would you want to investigate?
We could investigate two things:
1) Whether or not it does indeed rain tomorrow 2) What led you to hold this belief
JJ writes:
People believe only in those things that either can't be proven or have not been proved.
Well given that no evidence based conclusion can ever be proven that covers pretty much all conclusions outside of pure logical deduction.
So now we know that we can indeed evidentially investigate the supernatural beliefs held by humans and the causes of these beliefs do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this thread?
JJ writes:
I think what you want to say is that supernatural things are nonsense. But that has nothing to do with belief.
Let's start with an easy example. Did you ever believe in the existence of Santa?
If so - What led you to hold this belief? What led you to shed this belief?
Would you live in a house that was once the dwelling of a serial killer? When playing the lottery do you select numbers that have personal significance to you rather than just go with randomly generated numbers? If betting on dice would you want to make your bet and then throw the dice yourself or would you be happy to bet on an unknown but already completed dice throw? In each case — Why?
How rational are any of us really? Some more than others evidently. But I put it to you that none of us are immune from deeply human forms of irrationality. Let’s find out. Here are a few questions. Really consider them. What would you really do if I offered you a thousand pounds (or dollars if you prefer) to do the following things? When answering really try and imagine the situation as real.
For a thousand dollars/pounds would you:
1) Try on an item of clothing, such as a cardigan, once owned by (but since washed) the infamous serial killer Fred West? 2) Lick a close-up photo of some maggots? 3) Drink a cup of water taken from a newly installed, never before used and known to be sterile toilet bowl/urinal? 4) Throw darts at a life-size picture of a baby? 5) Gouge out the eyes of a photograph of a loved one? 6) Burn a (not special or precious but just everyday paperback) book?
Which would you do and which wouldn’t you do? Even if you would do the act in question which did you balk at before deciding that you would do it anyway?
To slightly give the game away the theory here is that those more predisposed to religious beliefs will make more irrational connections and make more decisions based on intuitive feelings involving unseen links than those more predisposed to rational thought.
But I would bet that even the most rational amongst us would have to seriously consider some of the above before actually doing them. Seriously consider them for reasons that rationally don’t make any sense but which humanly do.
Well based on my own answers I may not be nearly as rational as I would like to think. Here are my own answers to my own questions:
Me writes:
Would you live in a house that was once the dwelling of a serial killer?
No. I know it's irrational and I cannot quite explain it - But no. It's too sick in some way I can't really explain.
Me writes:
When playing the lottery do you select numbers that have personal significance to you rather than just go with randomly generated numbers?
I don't play the lottery (it is a pursuit for the probabilistically illiterate as far as I am concerned) but on the odd occasion that I have taken part I let the random number thing take it's course.
Me writes:
If betting on dice would you want to make your bet and then throw the dice yourself or would you be happy to bet on an unknown but already completed dice throw?
The first seems more natural but I don't have any preference ultimately. Rationality takes precedence.
Me writes:
For a thousand dollars/pounds would you:
Let's see...
Me writes:
1) Try on an item of clothing, such as a cardigan, once owned by (but since washed) the infamous serial killer Fred West?
Yes I would. But I sorta get why some people wouldn't....
Me writes:
2) Lick a close-up photo of some maggots?
For a 1000 pounds I would overcome my innate squeemishness but it wouldn't be as much of a rational no brainer as I would like to think. Actually imagining it makes me flinch.
Me writes:
3) Drink a cup of water taken from a newly installed, never before used and known to be sterile toilet bowl/urinal?
Genuinely no problem. Am sure I have done far worse.......
Me writes:
4) Throw darts at a life-size picture of a baby?
No issue with this at all. Even a pic of my own toddler wouldn't deter me in the slightest.
Me writes:
5) Gouge out the eyes of a photograph of a loved one?
Again - No issue at all.
Me writes:
6) Burn a (not special or precious but just everyday paperback) book?
I would def do it for a 1000 pounds but something inside would rankle for some reason. Weird.....?
But you said a thousand pounds in dollars. At .002205 lbs per bill that's 453,514 bills. I don't mind taking One's.
I see. How annoyingly clever. But given that I am paying in EvC standard issue hypo cheques for hypo answers to hypo quetions you can pretty much name your price......
AZ writes:
The house is a house is a house. It doesn't affect me because the house is not the killer. What may have happened there is out of time, invisible to me and is of no affect.
But but but............Oh fuckit I can't rationalie my position it is irrational. That is kinda the point.
But did you know that in American law when selling a property it has to be stated if it is haunted or otherwise "stigmatized" in some way (e.g. once owned by a serial killer) because this has serious repercusions for market value? It seems not all are as rational as you about such things. In fact most very much are not.
Who lives in the place where Jeffery Dahmer lived? It's now a car park. The house of the killer I asked about (Fred West) was demolished and every last brick crushed into dust before being spread across unmarked landfill sites.
Why do you think that is? Why won't people adopt the attitude you have expressed and live in these places?
Are most of us innately irrational about the hidden symbolism (even contagion) of such things.......?
Why we would do this I do not know. A throw back to the "evil spirit" days? We don't want to get contaminated? It would have been advantageous for a cave man to avoid and shun the evil plants, evil caves, evil animals where death and disease occurred and by extension anything that was made of, associated with or came from the evil things. I could see where this could expand to other things considered evil.
Whilst that is probably a bit over simplistic I would suggest it is along the right lines. Our intuitive mode of thinking leads us to make such connections and whilst we can rationally override them the intuitive notions remain present.
Do you have a wedding ring? Would you swap that ring for one that was physically identical?
I agree. You have a heart of stone and a spirit of neurons.
AZ writes:
If someone swapped my ring for an identical one without my knowledge it would make no difference.
One last try.....
What if they later told you what they had done? Would the ring you now have mean any less to you? Does even he with the heart of stone place exhibit signs of imbuing physical things with some form of non-material meaning that exists only in the human mind?
Your sentimental view of physical objects is very arguably irrational. It is only one step away from imbuing physical objects with immaterial properties of the type that is required for supernatural beliefs of the most base kind. The reason that most people would shirk from wearing the cardigan of a serial killer. The first step along the intuitive path that leads to the concept of the haunted house or the invoaction of some godly entity as a cause for the unexplained.
But it is these sorts of irrationalities that we are all prone to some extent or other.
Well except AZPau. He is just a fucking automaton!!
Not good evidence.
™ Version 4.2
(1)