But even if you are highlighting 'advantage seeking' as the idea around which all human behavior pivots, it still comes down to what is true or not. We still need to determine (and this is not always easy) does X produce an advantage, true or false? And how do we determine the true nature of an advantage? Humans tend to crave certainty and predictability in order to navigate a dangerous world, which strongly suggests we are likely to need to determine what is true. — Tom Storm

I am not sure if humans seek *what's true" or "what works". However, I do agree with you that this is not a very straight-forward question. But, I think that we are far more practical than we think we are and far less co concerned with "the true nature" of our beings or the universe and we are profit-maximising beings seeking our own advantage and we are brilliant at that. That doesn't mean we are necessarily bad, but this is as far as our capacities go and any attempt to learn about our true nature would fail.

I would further argue that what is "true" for us can only be reached through practicing not through questioning. You just become better in this everyday whether you like it or not because it falls within your natural abilities. Endless debates about such questions as whether God exists or not would only make us good at debating but wouldn't get us one inch closer to.the truth because it has never been our attention and we never really cared enough to know the truth. However, if we recognise that prayers would bring us more success we are more likely ro pray for.God and if science proves more beneficial, we would be more inclined to use science to our own benefit and why not attach good labels to it. It deserves it!

There are two points here. The first is that the logic of any discussion depends on the propositions of the argument being true. If they are not subject to truth, your arguments become illogical. The second is that if you are more concerned with advantage than with truth, you join the class of Bullshiters, in the philosophical, Frankfurt sense. And as such we ought pay no heed to what you have to say. — Banno

I I disagree with this view and would like to present an alternative perspective on the matter.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that our pursuit of truth is indeed a fundamental aspect of human nature. However, it would be erroneous to assert that we are solely driven by this pursuit and that our actions are divorced from our own self-interest. To suggest otherwise would be to overlook our inherent limitations and capacities as human beings.

While it is true that some individuals genuinely strive for truth and seek to expand their understanding of the world, it is equally valid to recognize that we are influenced by our own egos, desires, and limitations. Our cognitive capacities are inherently limited, and our ability to perceive the world objectively is inherently flawed. Our biases, preconceptions, and subjective experiences often shape the way we interpret and seek out truth.

Moreover, it is important to consider the role of self-interest and advantage-seeking in our pursuit of truth. If truth-seeking did not offer any personal advantage, would we truly be as motivated to engage in it? Our dreams, wishes, and the outcomes we desire often influence the topics and areas of inquiry that pique our interest. This does not invalidate our quest for truth but rather acknowledges the complex interplay between our aspirations and our understanding of reality.

David Hoffman's cognitive theory supports this perspective. It emphasizes the notion that our perceptions are shaped by evolutionary factors that prioritize survival and reproductive success. This means that our perceptions are not objective representations of the external world but rather subjective constructions that serve our evolutionary goals.

In light of these considerations, it is crucial to avoid making absolute claims about human nature and our motivations. Our pursuit of truth is undoubtedly influenced by a range of factors, including self-interest, ego, and the limitations of our cognitive abilities. To deny these influences is to overlook our true nature and hinder our capacity for self-reflection and growth.

Therefore, rather than dismissing alternative viewpoints as mere pragmatism or deceit, we should strive to embrace a more nuanced understanding of our own nature. By acknowledging our limitations and capacities, we can engage in more meaningful discussions about truth-seeking and the motivations that drive our intellectual endeavors.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists. — T Clark

Thanks!

Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can? — universeness

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? Yes. But science is blind to these facts. Because it is a the ultimate source of truth. A truth that is equally capable of benefiting and destroying people. I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. Whereas dogma is the one to be blamed. The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls.

There is a difference between organized religion and your own religious quest. Perhaps you do not understand that difference, but I suspect you do. It is evident that you know that many people here are adverse to religious talk, and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth". — Fooloso4

No I don't. I say what I attempt to say. I have no backdoors

Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo: — universeness

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams.

So, once again, it seems you are proselytizing. It is not about the distinction between faith and religion, it is about faith in your god, the god who "has a very solid logic", a god who will "bring you along his way" "His way." The way of God. To be brought "closer to him" in order to be brought along the way is, by its very definition, religion. Rather than sever faith and religion you join them. Are you trying to fool us or have you fooled yourself? — Fooloso4

I thought you were serious and open about your quest ro find your truth and this is why I opened up to you about my feelings. Here is the a multiple choice question for you.

Does God exist?
1) Ofcourse not (because this is the only answer I can manage).
2).Highly unlikely (stay away from this answer as there is a chance to be very painful and it is deadly scary).
3) Not at all (you are sane and totally playing it safe).

I think you are setting yourself the wrong goal and this is why you end up attacking me. I don't know what you have inside you. But, I know it is something you are trying to hide. I am saying you want to reach the truth by claiming you already have it (which is only wierd). Why ask for it if you already have it.

The truth of the matter is; I don't really care whether you believe in God or not. But, the truth is: you want me to care. i don't. Not at all. And God doesn't care either because He is not in doubt of His own existence. Now you would start telling me, "how do you know this.Does this mean you are talking to God. You must be crazy." I don't know this. But, I believe it and my heart tells me it. And you are allowed to believe something different and it totally fine. It is not a duty to worship and believe God. Which is the big difference between faith and religion: choice. Which is why faith is far less shakable than religion.

I have never commanded myself to worship God or to believe in Him or anything else. But, I allowed myself to drift and be open to what I find inside. It might be another thing for you and I am totally fine. If you belief there is a thief watching out your house. No matter what I do, you would still believe it. And this is something that people don't really get to understand. The choice is not what you really to believe. You will never really believe something that you don't believe in no matter how hard you try. The choice is: whether you want to bear the pains to know and trust something as a solid truth or not.

Well if you have talked through it with him that settles the matter. What then are you doing here? Proselytizing? Surely no one here can tell you anything more than you get directly. What you go on to say it sure seems like it. — Fooloso4

People have this concept that a person with faith has no doubts. On the contrary, a person with faith is the one who is most full of doubts. But, he is honest about them. He has travelled through his big piles of doubts to achieve tiny portions of faith. People see it like sunshine because they haven't done their homework. When prophet Mohamed first became a prophet he had doubts that he lost his mind. He even wanted to commit suicide! But this was everybody's best version of the truth. It is in no way the full truth.

Omnism is the process accepting all religions as true religions. I believe this is the case. But, they are just different tiny glimpses of God. I don't recommend omnism if it is just another religion going through big piles of text and applying the scientific method. It is too dry. Omnism will only work if it is driven by the heart and faith.

So, you are talking about faith in some concept you call God, who presumably is not just a concept. — Fooloso4

The concept of God is a very broad concept. Everyone captures a very small portion of it. Not through our five senses through our hearts.

Or, what if one has faith that God is a deceiver? — Fooloso4

That is a start. I used to think the same thing and I talked it through with him. He has a very solid logic and a character that would bring you along his way wherever you go.

It appears that faith is an empty concept after all. One that can be filled however one wishes. — Fooloso4

Not really. If you can't understand a human fully. Can you understand God fully? You can't understand God with your senses, they would lead you astray. You can only talk to Him through your heart. You might even mistake Him for your own voice. That is okay. Don't rush it. It will come to you. Sooner or later, you would start to distinguish your voice from His voice. And you would wonder why you haven't been able to tell them apart all along. The only thing that can bring you closer to Him is honesty and sincerity. The fakeness of religion would take you away from Him. He loves you. He accepts you as you are.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. — universeness

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall. The strength of the scientific method lies in its ability to get criticized and grow. Stevenson's evidence is not decisive, but it can crack open new doors. Did you ever wonder if our senses are strong enough or we are smart enough to discover God's existence? If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself?

The concept of 'faith', empty of content, is empty. — Fooloso4

No, it is not but I am not giving it away that easily because I don't want to impose my hard-earned concept of God over everyone's else. Faith is not that easy, it requires deep self exploration and effort. I can only point you to it but you are the one who has to travel. Else, I will be promoting a new religion and I am anti-religion. I, and I would claim God, want people to worship God with their own free will. Having a bunch of slaves worshipping the only one true image of God is only ugly and have led to many problems in the past.

@Wayfarer, interesting read.

@180 Proof what I meant to say was: Honestly, how do you distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy?

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so.

I think what you're trying to say is that even fictional characters have a kind of reality - which is true. It's also true that there are many elements of our inner world that are real, even if they don't have any outer existence. Many elements of the spiritual life are especially like this. But what's needed is to find an overall structure within which all these elements have a place. — Wayfarer

I totally agree with you. I was reacting to @180 Proof idea that they are just fantasies and they have much deeper meanings than that. They could be anywhere between some very powerful insights into our inner beings to higher beings communicating with us in their own unique way and they shouldn't be trashed as "just fantasies". But, I am advising no one to throw himself out of the window because of a superman's fantasy in his head.

@Wayfarer, thanks to your golden brain, knowledge and tongue expressing ideas at so much more fluidity and precision than me.

And so the eye says to the brain, "I see things and you understand yourself in part by me seeing them, but I cannot see you or myself so you cannot understand yourself completely and, like me, brain, you have to make up X-of-the-gaps fantasies about me and yourself. Of course, we cannot honestly believe those fantasies are true no matter what we tell ourselves ..." — 180 Proof

How do you honestly distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy. Honestly speaking, they all fall under one category: life experience. But you just actively make a conscious effort to distinguish between what is fantasy or not to maintain your sanity. But, you might as well lose it instead of doing something that you know you are doing to maintain your self-image and hence losing trust in yourself. Well, these "fantasies" define you. These "fantasies" are you trying to find your own self. These "fantasies' are the true you that you decided to lose so as not to get lost.

Well, that's not going to happen so don't get your hopes up — BC

I thought I was clear I was NOT waiting for this. Can you tell me what you are responding to exactly? I am saying and my point is clear: corruption is not linked to faith in God only. And I do admit that with God the temptation is high. Military rulings experience higher corruption levels than God I believe. But God is the black sheep for some reason as if all the problems happen because of Him. Well, guess what? As much as you hate it, I am not going to cut a part of me just to be accepted. And God is in my physical and psychological making and I would claim, we are all very similar but we have different self-awareness levels. So, when you tell me: "don't get your hopes so high up", my response would be, "only blame yourself if you do and go find your true faith whether it is God or something else because otherwise you are not living life to the fullest."

When you go to discover yourself, you don't tell yourself what to discover. You don't put boundaries. You could find anything. You could even find God and then be so shamed for life!

Is parsing out the difference between faith and religion in this way a kind of special pleading? You like faith, and dislike religion, so religion is responsible for bad things but not faith. — BC

Do I want a special status because I am a person with faith and a true believer in God? No. Am I holding myself on a pedestal and asking everyone to do thr same? No

But, being a person with faith in God is not something I should be ashamed of and I do think that faith is good. I do think that everyone of us, as hierarchical organisms have this tendency to test each other's powers and I do think that God or power at the top of the hierarchy is important to maintain peace of the mind and heart.

I do think that God is not essentially bad but it could be if we allow it to be so. And I do think that religion and dogmas are the problem and not faith.

Remember, I am a person with faith but I am also human and if you attach supernatural powers to me just because I say God exists, I wouldn't really mind it. But, my faith in itself is harmless. It is my faith compounded with people's fears and their seeking refugee of their troubles that can be very destructive.

In other words, it's hard to generalize about all faith, all prophecy, all scripture, all religion, etc. — BC

I agree that these concepts do not have clear boundaries. There is no such a thing as a perfect person with faith. People with faith tend to be more religious when the situation becomes so fearful. And there is no such a thing as a perfectly religious person. A religious person tends to act with faith when the situation is very safe. There are various grades and degrees of courage and faith. An infinite number of them. However, we need these concepts to understand some behaviours. Some people have more faith tendencies and some other people have more religious tendencies. But, the boundaries are not that clear in real life.

Religions are not all formed in the same way. Social situations and people interaction tend to be more complex than that. And generalisation is not what I attempted to do People are very complex beings and multi-faceted.

You can say that some people tend to more jealous than others. But jealous people when treated very fairly, they tend to be less jealous. That doesn't stop us from studying jealousy as a concept.

@Ø implies everything I am not sure I follow with what you are saying. Please, go back and read what I have said carefully as you seem to be seeking an explanation to what has already been well-explained.

The real problem with faith is that that it is possible to justify anything using an appeal to faith, from the Christian apartheid of South Africa, to anti-gay activists who hold their bigotries on faith

@Tom Storm, the degree of faith in such movements is very little. Such movements can be blamed more on religion more than faith. I don't think that someone will have faith that "gay people are bad". This seems to personal and involved. Faith tends to be more timeless. A person with faith is less likely to change his faith anywhere, anytime. A person with faith allows for recurring images in his head or un-repressed thoughts with the intention to find himself which he realises as his own safety haven.

Even though faith is not supported so much by empirical evidence. Beliefs based on faith seem very wierd as everything needs to be very carefully measured for truthfulness. However, this faith craziness is in our biological and psychological makeup and it is a very powerful survival tool. Life itself is very crazy and not realising that we are equally if not more crazy means that would not be able to achieve our balance. There is no rational way to deal with life.

it seems like you're redefining words and engaged more in creative writing than philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... and it makes for some interesting sort of college dorm room musing. But the words you're using have accepted definitions and attempting to redefining them in your own way is not going to become the norm for society... so how does it really get us anywhere?

It's like people who redefine God as love. And then they say well then of course God exists. But obviously most people use the idea of God to mean more than just love... Anyway that's my two cents

@Metamorphosis, I am not really sure that I should be really concerned with words. Words' purpose is to define meanings. I can tell you I love you when I really hate you. Long-tem actions will prove me wrong. So, I think that I shouldn't limit myself with words.

Having said that, I do agree with you, there is an issue and I didn't describe my thoughts in the most accurate terms. Like after reading the article that @Wayfarer' shared with me, I tend to think that Dharma is the word I should have used rather than faith. I am not trying to flip word definitions. This is not my target.

My real target is to express real concerns I have and I don't think that my lack of the right vocabulary should stop me. Because, if with my limited vocabulary, you can still understand what I am trying to say. I think that this is all words are attempted to do.

@Wayfarer, thank you for the excellent read and thoughts. The links you shared described what I wanted to say with far more clarity, terminology and precision.

That incidentally is fideism.

The phrase pulled out of its context, may mean fidelism: a word I am not entirely familiar with. But I think what @Vera Mont meant was: faith is not based on empiricism. It invokes actions that does not need to be validated by anyone which I think is right. Faith or what gets referred in the article you shared as Dharma, does not need validation. And it cannot be explained either. So, I tend to agree with @Vera Mont

Why would intuition need another name? Particular one that is usually taken to mean something quite different from what we usually mean by intuition, instinct, hunches or gut feelings?
Intuition is usually taken to mean a tentative or provisional conclusion drawn from incomplete or discontinuous evidence because precedents and patterns we recognize suggest what the picture should be. It's a conclusion arrived-at by jumping over the gaps. It's very useful as an indicator for fresh lines of inquiry, or pointing to aspects of a problem have not been sufficiently investigated.

Faith may well be based on a different model of the world, but it provides its owner with a certainty that precludes any further inquiry or room for doubt. An incontestable conclusion.

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

@Vera Mont, well said

This is certainly not true. I know a lot of religious people who are not afraid. For many, belief in God in the company of others who feel the same is a way to focus their attention outside of themselves, to give themselves to their community, to surrender their will, and to trust in the world

@T Clark, what you are saying is that they need the support system to trust the world. Which pre-assumes, they are essentially afraid of the world so they are "gathering up" and seeking warmth in religion and the support of God who favours their tribe. Without that, they would be too fearful to live. I do believe religion is fear-driven.

By the way, my first post did not get deleted. I just thought it got deleted.

And then?

@Vera Mont, I agree with everything you said although I think there are different ways of saying the same thing. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "And then"? I just wrote this because I thought it was interesting. If you didn't think it was interesting, why did you bother writing all of these comments?

@180 Proof it is true that religion is based on fear. So, in a fear culture as you said that terrorizes its people and imposes heavy punishments, you are likely to find more religious people. Which is why faith comes as a very valuable commodity in these cultures. People cherish and wait for the "super hero" to liberate them.

But things are not always black and white. People just don't fear punishment and in a liberal society, people can still fear things like failure. This is how big companies fail. Big companies have their reputation, their face and much more likely to fall than startups. Because when they get afraid, they tend to do more conservative, dogmatic and arguably religious choices that can guarantee their failure. This is how Kodak fell. They didn't want to risk their reputation and they wanted to do things the way they knew will bring them success. So, they failed to compete with iphones as they thought that was not their perfect formula for success. I think they would have appreciated a person with faith that could lead their change.

I'm not a dog. Such an argument by analogy is ...unconvinci

@Banno

Yes you are partially in the making. Funny how you choose to be scientific or not scientific just to win an argument.

Also, turns out the research behind the "alpha" wolf stuff was biased by being restricted to caged animals, and that wild wolves do not rely on any such structure.

Where do you bring this information from? Wolves are extremely hierarchical. Sometimes, they have alpha wolves. Sometimes, they have alpha partners and sometimes, they even have beta wolves.

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

@Tom Storm

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem.

@Banno, okay, so the need to submit to higher powers is real. It is like when dogs are together, they have to bark on each other to find out who is the alpha dog. But, it doesn't mean they do it because they like to get dominated. They just realise it as the only way to restore order. And It is the
same for humans. We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it.

20.3k
There seem to be two approaches – I won't call them arguments – in the OP. The first part is perhaps about institutional facts, and hints at the notion that god is a bit like Microsoft in being a result of our social rules. The second seems to be an expression of a desire for to be dominated.

There's a difference between nuance and lack of clarity.

Putting them together we get something like that god is a social institution that is desirable because it dominates.

@Banno

This is a very common misconception. God is not an oppression tool. And we don't want to be dominated. But, God is at the top of the hierarchy because He is the best and He is the strongest. Fair and square. And we are willing to accept it because we know it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it. You can have an ambition to be at the position of your boss, but that doesn't make you him. But, if you are willing to put on a fair fight to get promoted, who is stopping you? However, to say that you not at your level now because you want to be dominated is just wierd and lame.

I am not sure why is my arguments not clear or they lead to meaningless internet blather. Because you are not offering counter-arguments. Probably because you have none. Can you focus on what I said rather than how I said it? Also, when you make a claim, can you support it and tell me how it could be done better with examples if you have any?

I think the problem is: religion. Anything that is dogmatic is dead and whatever turns into religion, becomes spoiled. Mindlessness is a state corruption. Take Islam for example, it has been highly misrepresented as there was no such a thing as Islam during the prophet Mohamed's life. Islam was not a religion, it was a cult. And in the Quraan, they would refer to it as such. It was so far away from dogmatic. Verses would reverse the meanings of other verses, based on a different situations in a a very short time. The Quraan doesn't deny it. By the meaning there is a verse in the Quraan that says: "we don't reverse verses or make it forgotten unless we come up with new better verses or a similar one." New verses, meant new ways of doing things and new rules and better techniques. Unfortunately, it was very easy to become a Muslim. All you had to say was a very short phrase, "there is no God but God and the prophet Mohamed is the prophet of Allah", and you are in. That made the quality of people who join this cult were not the kind that would argue. Because they got the kinds of people nobody else would accept and he or she would be grateful for any kind of belonging. I don't think any Muslim would be able to quickly state the names of 50 of the prophet's companions who they speak so highly of and there is a reason to that. They were essentially ,except for very few of them, nobodies. We find Umar Ibn El Khattab argues a lot and he is one of the most prominent prophet companion's figures, because he was actually someone and the prophet Mohamed before he joined he prayed that "the Islam would be strong with one of the two Omar's". When Omar ruled, he actually changed things that were actually stated in the Quraan when others didn't dare to do it. Long story short: the prophet Mohamed, because of this model, enjoyed supreme powers that I doubt anyone enjoyed on earth throughout history. He became the supreme, most powerful figure in his troop with a divine connection. He would be a judge and a commander and they would teach people how to sleep with their wives and how to purify themselves after going to the toilet. And this is why after he died, these nobodies had to turn everything he said or did as a must-do. They knew.they just lost the source of their power and had to retain it somehow and they had to turn Islam into a religion. This is why Muslims until now are one of the most close-minded people of all times. They used to believe and they still do believe that following the prophet's orders as the source of their power. Having said that, the prophet Mohamed was among the most consciences, humane man of all times. Would clearly see that from the way he never tried to abuse their powers, his fairness and the unparalleled rights that he gave to women.

You can blame it on Islam, the prophet and Muslims so much but arguably anything that is successful and people don't know how to maintain it will turn into religion and ultimately lead into failure. Take the extreme leftist movement of the west as an example. This is how big companies like Kodak fail. People tend to become dogmatic when they are afraid.

Talking about science and evolution, well I don't see contradiction between evolution and the existence of God. Evolution just means that whoever is most powerful will control the world so supreme higher powers could have found their way to power through coincidence. We are hierarchical, so we must appreciate Gods sitting up there and maintaining the order. Things don't seem as chaotic as they should have been if such a hierarchy didn't exist.

Look, I might view things differently. I don't get what is constructed and what is not? When you say, it is all a function of the mind and neurones and the physical world, I think it is your decision to stop somewhere so that you don't get lost. For me, I refer to it as "the experience" and I don't decide to dwell in my body which is a product of my perception of the world. So, lef us say it is all physical as you said. Only substance. Are you that our spectrum of vision is very limited. Are you aware that you cannot view infra red. Are you aware that our most advanced physical equipment cannot capture the full "physical" world. Are you aware that there could be a physical creature standing right next to you but your physical senses cannot capture. You are terrified of the prospect. So, you decide to hang on to what you decide to call physical which is also what your senses can grasp. Much like someone who doesn't know how to swim hangs on to the fence of the pool.