Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Definition of terms and explanation of concepts

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
ndf8th
Sage
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:13 am
Location: North Europe

Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #1

Post by ndf8th »

I think I have finally found something
that comes near what I experience in my body.

Former atheist and don't belong nowhere is relating to that.

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/h ... 46299.html

Definition.

Intrinsic religiousness
(initially and still sometimes referred to as intrinsic religiosity)
is characterized as religion that is an end in itself, a master motive.

Thus, individuals described by intrinsic religiousness
view their religion as the framework for their lives,
and they try to consistently live the religion they believe.

A prototypic intrinsic religiousness test item is
"My whole approach to life is based upon my religion."

That can explain why I fail to find words for my situation.
I am formally atheist due to their inclusive definition
but I am Intrinsically religious in my feelings and behavior
and don't accept the intellectual claims that religions have
so I don't fit it among them. Feeling religious but are Non-affiliated.

Hope this make sense to you.

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #2

Post by A Troubled Man »

ndf8th wrote:
That can explain why I fail to find words for my situation.
I am formally atheist due to their inclusive definition
but I am Intrinsically religious in my feelings and behavior
and don't accept the intellectual claims that religions have
so I don't fit it among them. Feeling religious but are Non-affiliated.

Hope this make sense to you.
Not really, I have never seen any valid argument put forth in which one claims they were an atheist but have converted to some sort of religion. It is the claim of having been an atheist that is baffling.

How can one come to understanding that religions are merely myths and superstitions and then toss that all out in favor of embracing the very same myths and superstitions? It's mind boggling. The only answer must be a pre-frontal lobotomy.

ndf8th
Sage
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:13 am
Location: North Europe

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #3

Post by ndf8th »

A Troubled Man wrote: It is the claim of having been an atheist that is baffling.

How can one come to understanding that religions are
merely myths and superstitions and then toss that all out
in favor of embracing the very same myths and superstitions?

It's mind boggling. ....
I only wild guess. Embracing can be emotional and not intellectual.

Can it be similar to when one talk to a beloved Cat?
One know it most likely listen to the tone of the voice and not the content
of the intellectual things one say but for to get the right kind of tone
one still say the intellectual words despite knowing the Cat only
hear the body language and get that even if it fail at the intellect?

One talk to God despite God only is a symbol for the Auto-Pilot
in the brain and finding it likely that maybe the Auto-Pilot only
listen to the tone of my voice it having no brain of it's own being
just one module out of many in my brain but special enough to care
about how I sound even if it fail to get what I really say.

Edit. The Auto-pilot being part of the survival circuits in the brain.
God is supposed to be a savior and a healer so it make sense to me.

For to bring over the body language part it help to use the intellectual part
because that makes the emotional part authentic and genuine and that is
what the auto-Pilot listen to?

just my extreme wile guess. I sure can be wrong but it sounds okay to me.

I trust the word God is a symbol for an absolute natural phenomena
in our brain,

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #4

Post by A Troubled Man »

ndf8th wrote:
I trust the word God is a symbol for an absolute natural phenomena
in our brain,
If so, it would be nice to have someone point it out considering most everything in the brain already has a label.

ndf8th
Sage
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:13 am
Location: North Europe

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #5

Post by ndf8th »

A Troubled Man wrote:
ndf8th wrote:
I trust the word God is a symbol for an absolute natural phenomena
in our brain,
If so, it would be nice to have someone point it out considering most everything in the brain already has a label.
I trust my words mislead you to think it is something very odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... f_religion
Cognitive science of religion is the study of religious thought and behavior
from the perspective of the cognitive and evolutionary sciences.

The field employs methods and theories from a very broad range of disciplines,
including: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive anthropology,
artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, neurobiology, zoology, and ethology.

Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate,
and transmit religious memes by means of ordinary cognitive capacities.
so it is a too new field to have produced a consensus on how it works out.
At least two themes are popular. To see religion as a byproduct of
what the brain normally do.

another to see religion as an adaptation for to be able to keep very large groups
cooperating.

these two main themes don't have to be exclusive and more research
can suggest further insights.

I find it likely that God is made up of very many factors that work together.

what I do think it support is Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)
which I linked to in my first post.

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #6

Post by A Troubled Man »

ndf8th wrote:
I trust my words mislead you to think it is something very odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... f_religion

Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate,
and transmit religious memes by means of ordinary cognitive capacities.

so it is a too new field to have produced a consensus on how it works out.
At least two themes are popular. To see religion as a byproduct of
what the brain normally do.

another to see religion as an adaptation for to be able to keep very large groups
cooperating.

these two main themes don't have to be exclusive and more research
can suggest further insights.

I find it likely that God is made up of very many factors that work together.
But, the article you linked stated " transmit religious memes by means of ordinary cognitive capacities".

God has nothing to do with it. It's all about the spread of memes.

ndf8th
Sage
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:13 am
Location: North Europe

Post #7

Post by ndf8th »

That is explained by the costly signal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... _signaling

The wiki link was an answer to a question you did
the thread is about http://www.springerreference.com/docs/h ... 46299.html
Intrinsic religiousness
(initially and still sometimes referred to as intrinsic religiosity)
is characterized as religion that is an end in itself, a master motive.

Thus, individuals described by intrinsic religiousness
view their religion as the framework for their lives,
and they try to consistently live the religion they believe.
I don't trust that Memes is a good explanation. sure I did refer
to them around 1988 or so but since then nothing seems to
come out of it so we don't know how it works in the brain
but AFAIK nothing support the idea that god is something
outside of our brain and all evidence support it is something
we have invented as a social tool.

And for that tool to work effectively some religious constructs
has to claim that God is a supernatural independent entity
outside of us humans.

or else too many of the believers start up their own variants
and give up on the more realistic interpretations.

the human brain seems to be built that way by nature so
it is very difficult to come up with interpretations that does not
have supernatural independent beings in it.

Have you tried and what was your result?

The wiki I link to was in relation to a question you asked me.
The thread is about Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

the tread is not about how they refer to religious memes in that text
at Cognitive science of religion wiki text.

I find it unfortunate that they do. But they will come up with better
explanations when they have studied it better. Science is very slow
process it can take many decades before they do a breakthrough
and sometimes by accident get an insight into how it works in the brain.
God has nothing to do with it.
Depends on what you refer to.
there are some 6000 named gods so who am I to know which one you refer to?

Take Christian faith. some 2000 or more only in US and then they have not
counted all the variants in Europe or Asia either. these christians have very
different views on what God is about. That is only the official doctrines on God.

then you have each individual believer having their own interpretation of
what God is for them personally.

some believers only trust in a God that give them the gift of talking in tongue
and these believers don't trust in a God that don't support such expressions.

My Pentecostal neighbor and I stood talking about Jesus at the entry of
our big house it was summer and warm and the cool wind worked best there
and both of us retired so we had time to talk religion and two jehovah Witness
came for to visit those in the house they wanted to convert to their take on God.

so the cool thing is that for me as a then atheist and for her as a Pentecostal
christian none of us believed in the God she believed in and we told the JW
that we did not approve of their god. So to them both of us where seen as
atheists in relation to their God.

Is it not fair to say that every person have their own interpretation of God?
Nobody knows anything about God. But every religious traditions have it's
own definition and tradition of doctrines and that is the costly signal for
to join a certain religious tradition. But that is what humans have made up.

humans make the religious traditions with the definitions of God and
each such trust in their own take on God. But none knows because
God is by definition beyond knowledge unless an interpretation allow
them to "know".

I think to name that memes seems to not be enough. we need better tools
but that is for science to find out.

As i said the thread is about Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)
what is your view on that phenomena?

ProphetSHSU
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: Intrinsic Religiousness (Religiosity)

Post #8

Post by ProphetSHSU »

A Troubled Man wrote: Not really, I have never seen any valid argument put forth in which one claims they were an atheist but have converted to some sort of religion. It is the claim of having been an atheist that is baffling.

How can one come to understanding that religions are merely myths and superstitions and then toss that all out in favor of embracing the very same myths and superstitions? It's mind boggling. The only answer must be a pre-frontal lobotomy.
There's a lot of things wrong with this.

1) No one needs an argument to make the claim that they converted from atheism to theism. This presumes that everyone behaves rationally which is demonstrably false.

2) I'd argue that every human being in the world who is a theist made the transition from atheism to theism as babies don't start out believing in deities generally. That's 100% of theists who started as atheists.

3) Atheism is not the 'understanding that religions are merely myths and superstitions'. Atheism is the rejection of god claims. The amount of mid-boggling required depends completely on which god-claim is being presented and rejected. Some go claims, like those claiming omnipotence and omni-benevolence simultaneously, are easy to reject as logically impossible. Others, like some of the gods of deists who folks believe kicked off the universe, but exist outside of space and time and do not interact in any way with the physical world, are easier to accept as feasible as they are not logically contradictory, and would present no evidence for their own existence.

4) Believing clearly doesn't require that one be stupid, or have a lobotomy. There are enough intelligent believers that this shouldn't need to be stressed too much harder.

And finally, in response to the original thread, intrinsic religiosity is a malformed concept. There is no such thing as religiosity being intrinsic, rather what we're dealing with the is efficacy of the indoctrination the child was put through, and that child's intrinsic susceptibility to being indoctrinated. That intrinsic susceptibility to steadfastly refusing to question what one is indoctrinated to believe as a child is what is being referred to here as 'intrinsic religiosity' in the case that what the child is fed is religion.

Post Reply