The Science behind Belief

[boatsnguitars]

We often skirt around this issue to avoid offending people who are neurodivergent and can't understand their beliefs are based on factors other than their unique, occult knowledge of the "supernatural." In fact, science has provided a substantive body of work that shows why people become religious:

Social Factors: Socialization plays a significant role in shaping religious beliefs. Family, community, and cultural influences can introduce and reinforce religious teachings, rituals, and values from an early age. Religious communities provide a sense of belonging, social support, and shared identity, which can contribute to the adoption and maintenance of religious beliefs.

Psychological Factors: Several psychological needs and tendencies can draw individuals towards religious beliefs. These include the need for meaning and purpose in life, the desire for a sense of control and predictability, the need for comfort and reassurance in the face of uncertainty and existential concerns, and the quest for identity and self-transcendence. Religion can offer answers to life's big questions, provide a moral framework, and offer a sense of hope and solace.

Cognitive Factors: Humans possess cognitive biases that make them prone to religious beliefs. For example, the tendency to perceive agency and intentionality in the natural world (called agent detection) can lead to beliefs in supernatural beings or forces. Additionally, our brains have evolved to seek patterns and make sense of the world, which can contribute to finding meaning and purpose in religious narratives.

Emotional Factors: Emotions play a significant role in religious experiences. Religious practices, rituals, and beliefs can evoke a range of emotions, including awe, reverence, joy, and a sense of transcendence. These emotional experiences can deepen one's connection to religious beliefs and foster a sense of spiritual fulfillment.

Neurological Factors: Neurological research suggests that religious experiences can be associated with specific brain activity patterns. Certain brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and temporal lobes, have been implicated in religious experiences, feelings of transcendence, and religiously motivated behaviors. However, it is important to note that the neural correlates of religious experiences do not provide a definitive explanation for the origins or truth claims of religious beliefs.

I think these things are definitely worth discussing. After all, it's clear that people in Muslim countries become Muslim, those in Buddhist countries become Buddhist, etc. But there are other factors, especially with those people who are zealots, extremists, or otherwise fanatical. There are also those who have feelings that they are prophets, or have secret knowledge that others don't have - despite having no special insight. Some think they can predict what God will do next, and they all fail miserably.

Debate:
1. Why isn't this more of a topic of conversation?
2. Are religious people able to analyze their beliefs from this perspective, or do they believe they are immune?
3. Why are beliefs that are so "odd" (like the belief in the supernatural, despite there being no evidence) so compelling to people who have so-called "mental disorders"?
4. This is not to shame mental illness (I have it, and it runs in the family), but to try to talk about it and ask why people who exhibit certain traits are drawn to believe they are special to God - and why this isn't a fair discussion to have when discussing religion?
5. If religion is a psycho-social-neurological phenomenon, what would that mean?

[bluegreenearth]

Marke: For large land animals to be preserved as fossils underground on land there must have been very deep flooding. For sea creature fossils to be preserved above 10,000' elevation levels on land there must have been deep flooding.

The Theory of Continental Drift is a falsifiable explanation for the existence of fossilized marine creatures in strata located at or near the tops of mountains that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. The claim of a supernaturally caused global flood, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable.

[marke]

Marke: For large land animals to be preserved as fossils underground on land there must have been very deep flooding. For sea creature fossils to be preserved above 10,000' elevation levels on land there must have been deep flooding.

The Theory of Continental Drift is a falsifiable explanation for the existence of fossilized marine creatures in strata located at or near the tops of mountains that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. The claim of a supernaturally caused global flood, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable.

Marke: The fact that neither claim can be proven does not prove there was no universal flood. Tectonic plates cannot explain away the evidence of a universal flood. For example, the evidence of massive areas of flattened tropical vegetation covered by thousands of feet of frozen muck in Alaska cannot be explained by shifting tectonic plates, and details about supposed shifting of tectonic plates in Alaska or in the Himalayas for example are unproven.

[bluegreenearth]

Marke: For large land animals to be preserved as fossils underground on land there must have been very deep flooding. For sea creature fossils to be preserved above 10,000' elevation levels on land there must have been deep flooding.

The Theory of Continental Drift is a falsifiable explanation for the existence of fossilized marine creatures in strata located at or near the tops of mountains that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. The claim of a supernaturally caused global flood, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable.

Marke: The fact that neither claim can be proven does not prove there was no universal flood. Tectonic plates cannot explain away the evidence of a universal flood. For example, the evidence of massive areas of flattened tropical vegetation covered by thousands of feet of frozen muck in Alaska cannot be explained by shifting tectonic plates, and details about supposed shifting of tectonic plates in Alaska or in the Himalayas for example are unproven.

What falsifiable claim do you have to offer as an explanation? How could your claim be tested to determine if it is false?