The Harm of Belief in God

[Batman]

What is that often complained about by religious people holier-than-thou attitude allegedly exhibited by atheists? From all I know, atheists don't believe God exists and-um, that's it. It's inevitably religious organizations that go door to door and try to preach their beliefs as the one and only true ones. I can't recall any organized attempts by atheists to get people to stop believing in God. Especially as unlike religious organizations, atheists can't even threaten you with eternal damnation in the afterlife if you don't abide by their demands because the very point they'd try to get you to agree to means there is no afterlife so if you tell them to sod off, there's jack all they can do.

[Liberty]

I can't recall any organized attempts by atheists to get people to stop believing in God.

I wanna.

In today's world, we have freedom of religion. What that means, in practical terms, is that every religious body has to fight for members, and thus market their religion. It's a free marketplace of religion, and the one that markets to people best wins. Except atheists don't market. Everyone else does. This puts atheism at a severe disadvantage for gaining converts.

Of course, atheism isn't a religion. Which would be why it doesn't organize and try to get converts like everyone else. But sometimes, I really think it should. Because if it doesn't, all the believing-in-things-that-don't-exist religious organizations will keep being the ones to make and keep converts. In general, anyway.

[Batman]

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in God. The problem with organized religion isn't that the members of it believe in God, it's that some of them want to force that belief on others, wether they want it or not, and want the law to allow them to punish people who decline to abide by their rules.

[Liberty]

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in God. The problem with organized religion isn't that the members of it believe in God, it's that some of them want to force that belief on others, wether they want it or not, and want the law to allow them to punish people who decline to abide by their rules.

I was raised fundamentalist. My entire family believes the world was created 6000 years ago. After I left the fold, my parents told me they were reconsidering whether to send my younger sisters to college at all. I have five sisters still at home. They are being raised to believe that their role in life is to submit to their husbands (or, at the moment, to their father) as to God. I'm sorry, but delusions like a belief in god very often ARE harmful. I know I was harmed.

Look what is happening in America today? Do you think the health care reform would have ended like it did if not for the pervasive nature of Christianity in this country? Do you not know that there is a large movement in this country to BAN women's right to abortion? In fact, they have made real progress - the restrictions on abortion in some states are so cumbersome that the right to abortion might as well not exist. Did you miss that religious people have completely taken over sex education in many parts of this country, teaching children that god wants them pure, rather than to make responsible decisions? Did you not hear about how the Texas board of education was taken over by conservative Christians who rewrote the state's history standards, essentially changing the history? Did you miss that the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass because of religion? Did you miss that 3000 Americans died in New York City because of religion? Have you not heard about the many televangelists who fleece people of their money (God wants YOU to give me your money!)? Do you not know of the millions of gay men and women who live in absolute inner turmoil because of the religious beliefs in which they have been indoctrinated, or of the Christian groups whose purpose is to make gay people straight?

Religion is harmful. Why? Because it subverts rational decision making. And yes, that harms people.

[Liberty]

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in God. The problem with organized religion isn't that the members of it believe in God, it's that some of them want to force that belief on others, wether they want it or not, and want the law to allow them to punish people who decline to abide by their rules.

I reread your comment and realized that your response to much of what I said would likely be that those things involve forcing religious beliefs on others, which you did state is the problem (rather than religion itself).

However, as I pointed out, religion does harm the people who hold the beliefs, or are raised with them. I know girls I grew up with who are perfectly happy with their religious beliefs, but have been undeniably harmed by them; they are still living at home, didn't go to college, and have zero prospects. I really hope this doesn't happen to my younger sisters. And also, like I pointed out, gays who torture themselves mentally because they can't reconcile their feelings with the religion in which they were raised. Or, women in Islamic countries who literally believe that their God ordained duty in life is to be the property of their husbands. They would say they aren't harmed - that they choose to serve their husbands, and in so doing serve god, and are happy with it - but I'm sorry, they ARE harmed.

Anytime a superstitious belief undermines rationality, it IS harmful, and I have seen way too much of this.

[SCRawl]

I think the Dark Knight's point was that in and of itself belief in god is not that big of a deal. If someone prefers to believe that we're all here because there's an intelligence behind all of this, you know what, that's just fine with me. People like this can still lead productive lives; a close friend of mine is Catholic, and a practicing engineer (and a good one). He professes belief in god, and his ability to reason seems unimpaired.

Of course, if your (not your, but a nebulous third person here) flavour of religion is of the batshit crazy variety, and you organize with other wingnuts and teach your children nothing better than to be just as ill-informed and belligerent about it, well, yeah, that's a problem. The only test for allowing people to procreate right now is the ability to get laid, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Batman]

Correction: religion can be harmful, and at least for the abrahamic ones has a pretty consistent track record for being harmful even to this day.
What I'm trying to get across is not everybody who is religious is a fundamentalist nutjob. I never tried to deny the US HAS plenty of fundamentalist nutjobs.

[Batman]

Why? There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in God. The problem with organized religion isn't that the members of it believe in God, it's that some of them want to force that belief on others, wether they want it or not, and want the law to allow them to punish people who decline to abide by their rules.

I reread your comment and realized that your response to much of what I said would likely be that those things involve forcing religious beliefs on others, which you did state is the problem (rather than religion itself).
However, as I pointed out, religion does harm the people who hold the beliefs, or are raised with them. I know girls I grew up with who are perfectly happy with their religious beliefs, but have been undeniably harmed by them; they are still living at home, didn't go to college, and have zero prospects.

And I question your undeniable harm allegation. If they are perfectly happy with that who are you to declare to argue?
I happen to agree with everything you said. As far as I'm concerned, nobody would want to live that way. Unfortunately I also DO know somebody who DOES want to live that way, despite my best efforts to show her how incredibly stupid that is.
And we're not talking a doesn't-know-better 13 year old that's too scared to do otherwise, we're talking a 22 year old rather smart girl that has been bombarded for four years with me considering her stance on religion abysmally stupid yet still insists she wants to live that way.

I really hope this doesn't happen to my younger sisters. And also, like I pointed out, gays who torture themselves mentally because they can't reconcile their feelings with the religion in which they were raised.

Not a problem with religion as such. A problem with fundies, which at least in the US seems to be tightly connected, but not the same.

Or, women in Islamic countries who literally believe that their God ordained duty in life is to be the property of their husbands. They would say they aren't harmed - that they choose to serve their husbands, and in so doing serve god, and are happy with it - but I'm sorry, they ARE harmed.

Which is due to religion period as opposed to the male population (especially the parts interpreting the Qouran) any way they see fit how?

Anytime a superstitious belief undermines rationality, it IS harmful, and I have seen way too much of this.

If and when it actually proves to be harmful. I don't see how belief in God is any more inherently more harmful than belief in me and Clark, or Narnia, or Star Wars. The harm starts when people act on those beliefs.

[Serafina]

Correction: religion can be harmful, and at least for the abrahamic ones has a pretty consistent track record for being harmful even to this day.
What I'm trying to get across is not everybody who is religious is a fundamentalist nutjob. I never tried to deny the US HAS plenty of fundamentalist nutjobs.

All religion has one harmfull thing in common:
It is based on superstition and furthers superstition.

Even someone who was not raised with religion and does not adhere to organized religion still has that problem: He embraces a superstitious belief.
That belief might not be automatically harmful. But it has the potential of being harmful. Potential harm is harmful - reducing it is considered beneficial and increasing it is considered detrimental. Just think of medications that increase the risk of certain things happening - they do not automatically cause harm, but they might. Religion is pretty much the same thing - it's a thing some people start to solve certain personal problems which carries the risk of potential harm.

Now, we can analyze the cost and benefit of religon based on that. But for every benefit (solving a personal crisis) there is an alternative medicament with fewer side effects and less risks - you do not NEED relgion to solve problems, there is nothing that only religion can solve.

Also, "taking religion" has a very unfortunate side effect: It is contagious. Most religious people in the world did not convert out of their own free will, to solve a problem. They are raised to be relgious, without any choice of their own. And they will be hit worst by the side effects of religion - they are raised with superstition.
In addition, religion tends to form organized groups which make all of the above worse.


Overall, religions cost/benefit ratio seems to be negative. The one benefit it provides can be granted by other means. And it always comes with potential harm that tends to increase the more people take it, and also with every passing generation.

[Liberty]

All religion has one harmfull thing in common:
It is based on superstition and furthers superstition.

Thank you Serafina, this was the point I was trying to make. Superstition is NEVER good, and religion is all based on superstition. So that makes it not good. I suppose you could say that it's not "bad" unless it actively harms someone, but even if you make that argument, it certainly isn't "good."

[Batman]

And I never tried to say it was. In fact, I'm reasonably certain I pointed out that abrahamic religions in particular have a pretty lousy track record.
What I'm arguing against, and all I'm arguing against, is your apparent assumption that religion will cause harm. Of course it has the potential to do so. If history is anything to go by it's a lot more likely to cause harm than good too. But there's plenty of religious people who live perfectly happy lives and don't try to force their beliefs on anybody else. Not every religious person is a fundie.
And yes, a lot of people are religious essentially because of indoctrination from youth. Or because of somebody taking advantage of situations where their defenses were down due to some personal tragedy and they'd leap at anything, everything that offered them hope/peace of mind/redemption etc. Or because if they don't abide by 'insert local religion's rules' they get killed.
All I'm saying is that some people actually do choose to live that way, of their own free will, in secular countries, despite having repeatedly been exposed to the fact that their holy books are mostly hogwash (and agreeing with that) and that it is likely to do nothing but make their life more miserable (and agreeing with that too).
No I don't understand it either. All I'm saying is there are people like that, and not everybody who's religious is so because he/she didn't know any better or had no choice.

[Serafina]

Aaand you missed the point entirely.

I am not talking about religion causing people to do evil things. That's a major reason why i am opposed to religio, but that's not what i am arguing right now.

Instead, let me repost my actual argument:

All religion has one harmfull thing in common:
It is based on superstition and furthers superstition.

That's my argument.
So, what am i saying here? It's really quite simple: Superstition means that you will believe in something and act according to it without considering the actual world around you.
Now, i have yet to see a single religion which does not contain some form of teaching about how you should live your life. Some of those are good, some of those are bad. And while not all may be based on superstition, all are used based on superstition.
So essentially, every religion causes people to do things without thinking about these things. Which can lead to bad decision.

But there is more to it: Religious superstition also tends to intrude onto things that are not teached by that religion. Because all religion teaches superstition, it supresses critial thinking. You can still be religious and a critical thinker at the same time, but it's more difficult than being an atheist and a critical thinker - being dislexic and a writer is also possible, but harder than not being dislexic and a writer.

I think we can observe this in all religion - be it Budhism, Abrahamism, shamanic tradition or anyting else. It introduces an element of blind faith and superstition into peoples life and their culture which is bound to be detrimental at some point because it causes them not to consider things they should have considered.



Now, i will quote some of your post, just because i love doing it:

What I'm arguing against, and all I'm arguing against, is your apparent assumption that religion will cause harm. Of course it has the potential to do so. If history is anything to go by it's a lot more likely to cause harm than good too. But there's plenty of religious people who live perfectly happy lives and don't try to force their beliefs on anybody else. Not every religious person is a fundie.

Here you fail to consider another tangent of my argument:
That the potential to cause harm is harmful and undesirable by itself.
Let's say you contract a disease. That disease is dormant for now and causes no real harm. But if your immue systems get's too weak, it is likely to harm you. According to the logic you use above, something that does not harm everyone it affects is not really a bad thing - otherwise your tangent about "there are happy religious people" is pointless.
Religion has the potential to cause harm. That makes it undesirable and harmful.

All I'm saying is that some people actually do choose to live that way, of their own free will, in secular countries, despite having repeatedly been exposed to the fact that their holy books are mostly hogwash (and agreeing with that) and that it is likely to do nothing but make their life more miserable (and agreeing with that too).
No I don't understand it either. All I'm saying is there are people like that, and not everybody who's religious is so because he/she didn't know any better or had no choice.

I actually understand it.
You see, superstition is a great way to resolve a personal crisis. I once (after my mother died) tried to do just that. It did not work because i was not able to suspend my critical thinking on that particular part of my life. It did work for my little sister. And she's honestly feeling better due to it. But i am also feeling better, i could also resolve that issue. Perhaps it was harder for me, but i am not too sure about that.
Either way, my sister is still quite the critical thinker. But she is not applying it to that part of her life - and that actually causes a lot of harm. Since she is not willing (and thus also incapable) of applying critical thinking to the issue of our mothers death, she is also incapable of resolving several other issues (including our stepmother) that relate to it.

Now, using "critical thinking" for a highly emotional process sounds odd. But when you feel an emotion, you can also figure out why and when and how you feel it, what's behind it and so on. This can lead to important new insights. It led me to the insight why is was actually angry at my father and my stepmother - and then i was able to work on these things. My sister can't make that step - she only feels her anger at those two, but she can not process it - because she doesn't allow herself to do it. Because her solution for her problem was to adopt an inflexible superstitious belief, so she can't really deviate from her original conclusions. I hope that she can do it one day, but right now her religions is holding her back there and thus actively harming her.



Okay, since i wrote so much, let's make a point out of it:
When you believe in something, you want to believe in it. That means that it's hard to change that belief - you do not want to, after all. Thus, beliefs are inherently inflexible. Religious beliefs are nearly always coupled to the claim that believing is also a good thing - if you stop believing it's a bad thing. That only reinforces that problem.
Therefore, a person who adopts a (religious) belief will ultimately cripple herself in some way - she get's inflexible. Which, again, has the potential to cause harm and is therefore bad.


Bottom line:
Religious belief is bad because it furthers superstition and causes inflexible thinking, both of which is potentially harmful.

[Batman]

Instead, let me repost my actual argument:

All religion has one harmful thing in common:
It is based on superstition and furthers superstition.

That's my argument.
So, what am i saying here? It's really quite simple: Superstition means that you will believe in something and act according to it without considering the actual world around you.

No it doesn't. It means that to a certain and highly variable degree people will ignore/interpret as they see fit things going on in the real world.
There's plenty of people who go to mess sunday morning and won't eat meat on fridays but otherwise live completely ordinary lives.
Again, not every religious person is a fundie.

Now, i have yet to see a single religion which does not contain some form of teaching about how you should live your life. Some of those are good, some of those are bad. And while not all may be based on superstition, all are used based on superstition.
So essentially, every religion causes people to do things without thinking about these things. Which can lead to bad decision.

And this is simply not true.
Every abrahamic religion tries to (I very suspect so does every other religion but those are the only ones I'm certain about).

But there is more to it: Religious superstition also tends to intrude onto things that are not teached by that religion. Because all religion teaches superstition, it supresses critial thinking. You can still be religious and a critical thinker at the same time, but it's more difficult than being an atheist and a critical thinker - being dislexic and a writer is also possible, but harder than not being dislexic and a writer.

That's hardly a fair comparison. I also don't see how religion suppresses critical thinking. It certainly affects it because it encourages believing in one fairy tale, so why not believe another, but suppression of critical thinking would require for there to be no religious scientists. OR rational debaters. I very much assume you know there are plenty of those to be found.
Again, you seem to be thinking fundamentalist religion. And again, I agree. But not all religion is like that.

I think we can observe this in all religion - be it Budhism, Abrahamism, shamanic tradition or anything else. It introduces an element of blind faith and superstition into peoples life and their culture which is bound to be detrimental at some point because it causes them not to consider things they should have considered.

And you blithely assume that element of blind faith is introduced for all religious people when that is simply not the case.
Again, religious does not equal fundie hardcase. Mary Sue who obeys all the stupid fasts, won't eat meat on fridays and goes to mass every sunday is STILL religious even though she ignores pretty much the majority of the rules she is supposed to follow (I'm for the sake of the argument assuming she's catholic because that's the only set of rules I'm even vaguely familiar with).

Now, i will quote some of your post, just because i love doing it:

What I'm arguing against, and all I'm arguing against, is your apparent assumption that religion will cause harm. Of course it has the potential to do so. If history is anything to go by it's a lot more likely to cause harm than good too. But there's plenty of religious people who live perfectly happy lives and don't try to force their beliefs on anybody else. Not every religious person is a fundie.

Here you fail to consider another tangent of my argument:
That the potential to cause harm is harmful and undesirable by itself.

What you are ignoring is that desirable or not, religion is here, and we have to deal with it. I won't get into how pretty much everything is potentially harmful as that's a different discussion.

All I'm saying is that some people actually do choose to live that way, of their own free will, in secular countries, despite having repeatedly been exposed to the fact that their holy books are mostly hogwash (and agreeing with that) and that it is likely to do nothing but make their life more miserable (and agreeing with that too).
No I don't understand it either. All I'm saying is there are people like that, and not everybody who's religious is so because he/she didn't know any better or had no choice.

When you believe in something, you want to believe in it. That means that it's hard to change that belief - you do not want to, after all. Thus, beliefs are inherently inflexible. Religious beliefs are nearly always coupled to the claim that believing is also a good thing - if you stop believing it's a bad thing. That only reinforces that problem.
Therefore, a person who adopts a (religious) belief will ultimately cripple herself in some way - she get's inflexible. Which, again, has the potential to cause harm and is therefore bad.

It is bad if and when it does so. And I happen to agree it has I high probability of doing so. (And have said so before).

Bottom line:
Religious belief is bad because it furthers superstition and causes inflexible thinking, both of which is potentially harmful.

And I'm sorry, that's not true. It can and it does in a lot of cases. I never denied that. But you are arguing that it inevitably does and that's simply not true.
And pretty much every discovery mankind made during the last 6000 years or so was potentially harmful.
Look I'm not saying religion was a good idea. But it happened, and you can't make it go away by harping on the harm it did while ignoring the occasions where it actually resulted in something worthwhile.

[Serafina]

No it doesn't. It means that to a certain and highly variable degree people will ignore/interpret as they see fit things going on in the real world.
There's plenty of people who go to mess sunday morning and won't eat meat on fridays but otherwise live completely ordinary lives.
Again, not every religious person is a fundie.

And you STILL don't get it, do you?
First, you totally ignore the concept of potential harm. You point out people who are not harme (in your opinion) and therefore conclude that it is not a bad thing. This is completely idiotic, and you are just ignoring what i said.
Second, how do you know that it has no influence on their lifes? My sister would fit into the category your described - she doesn't even go to church every sunday, yet her personal religious beliefs caused her great harm.

And this is simply not true.
Every abrahamic religion tries to (I very suspect so does every other religion but those are the only ones I'm certain about).

What are you trying to say here?
"Oh, they are only trying, so it's not a bad thing"?
Every religion teaches people how to live their lives (or at least parts of it) based on superstition. Of course people can choose not to follow it, but they have to fight against an influence in order to do so. See my example with dyslexia above.

That's hardly a fair comparison. I also don't see how religion suppresses critical thinking. It certainly affects it because it encourages believing in one fairy tale, so why not believe another, but suppression of critical thinking would require for there to be no religious scientists. OR rational debaters. I very much assume you know there are plenty of those to be found.

And again you are ignoring what i said, moron. Because i DID say that you can be a critical thinker and religious at the same time, i just said that it is harder. Because it teaches you NOT to think about certain things - but critical thinking requires you to be able to question all things, if necessary. And since religion says you shall not do that, it is blocking critical thinking. You can often overcome this, but the blockade is there and unless you are a particulary smart person, you are unlikely to really overcome it.

Again, you seem to be thinking fundamentalist religion. And again, I agree. But not all religion is like that.

No, i'm not. I have yet to meet an actual fundamentalist in real life (they are rare here). But even with the "ordinary people" who only go to church every sunday and are really not all that religious, i have observed what i am describing: Being religious can block and damage their ability for critical thinking, which is harmful.

Also, there are people who really are not religious. I go to church every now and then (well, once or twice a year), i celebrate christmas and easter and i am still listed as a member of the protestant church (i did not bother to quit yet). But that doesn't make me religious, and my personal beliefs are absolutely atheistic.

And you blithely assume that element of blind faith is introduced for all religious people when that is simply not the case.
Again, religious does not equal fundie hardcase. Mary Sue who obeys all the stupid fasts, won't eat meat on fridays and goes to mass every sunday is STILL religious even though she ignores pretty much the majority of the rules she is supposed to follow (I'm for the sake of the argument assuming she's catholic because that's the only set of rules I'm even vaguely familiar with).

And as i said above, that accusation is entirely baseless.

What you are ignoring is that desirable or not, religion is here, and we have to deal with it. I won't get into how pretty much everything is potentially harmful as that's a different discussion.

Now you are introducing a new element, because you are an idiot and can't admit that you don't have an actual argument. By your logic, we should not do anything against smoking, because "it's here and we have to deal with it, and you won't get into how pretty much everything is potentially harmful".

Religions is a net-loss for society and many individuals. It only offers one advantage (ignorance CAN solve things, and so can false hope) but that advantage can be replicated in less detrimental ways. But it comes with several disadvantages - it teaches superstition and tends to spread and create organized religion with all of it's disadvantages. You can fight against these disadvantages - but without religion, you would not have to fight against these at all.

And I'm sorry, that's not true. It can and it does in a lot of cases. I never denied that. But you are arguing that it inevitably does and that's simply not true.
And pretty much every discovery mankind made during the last 6000 years or so was potentially harmful.
Look I'm not saying religion was a good idea. But it happened, and you can't make it go away by harping on the harm it did while ignoring the occasions where it actually resulted in something worthwhile.

Okay, now i am convinced that you are a moron who can't understand what i am writing.
Because i am NOT arguing that it inevitably causes harm. You have totally ignored my argument for potential harm and settled for a strawman and/or red herring.
And your argument "it's there so you have to deal with it" is completely idiotic. Of course i have to deal with it - by trying to get rid of it. Just i deal with smoking or excessive drinking or drug abuse or diseases (i do not have the ability to actually get rid of those on a large scale of course, but i try on a small scale when i can).

[Lagmonster]

Split this semi-tangent from the Debate thread to where it can be addressed.

[Maj]

Every religion teaches people how to live their lives (or at least parts of it) based on superstition.

While many other animals have minor capacities for superstitious behavior, humans do it best. For the life of me, I will never understand why people who claim critical thinking and rationality as some of the most important values in their lives fail to comprehend the fact that we have evolved to be more superstitious, not less. I can only conclude that - even though I might not fully understand why - there is evolutionary value in superstitious behaviors.

So my question is: Why was superstition naturally selected for?

Because it teaches you NOT to think about certain things - but critical thinking requires you to be able to question all things, if necessary.

It seems to me that having any strong opinion or belief teaches you not to think about certain things.

[Rochey]

While many other animals have minor capacities for superstitious behavior, humans do it best. For the life of me, I will never understand why people who claim critical thinking and rationality as some of the most important values in their lives fail to comprehend the fact that we have evolved to be more superstitious, not less. I can only conclude that - even though I might not fully understand why - there is evolutionary value in superstitious behaviors.

So my question is: Why was superstition naturally selected for?

Has superstition really come about due to natural selection? It would seem more likely to be just a side-effect of humans becoming more and more intelligent over time.

For example, a dog lacks the capacity to wonder why the sun rises every morning and where it goes at night. Humans are more than capable of pondering such things. Long before science as we know it came about, there were no real answers to such questions, as there was no way for early humans to really determine an answer. And that's merely one question. There are dozens more that early humans would have found impossible to answer. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens when we die?

With no real way to answer these questions, the concept of gods and spirits were invented to explain them.

[Serafina]

While many other animals have minor capacities for superstitious behavior, humans do it best.

What is your evidence for this?
I would rather argue that animals are more superstitious since they rely more on pre-conceived notions rather than on reasoned ones.

For the life of me, I will never understand why people who claim critical thinking and rationality as some of the most important values in their lives fail to comprehend the fact that we have evolved to be more superstitious, not less. I can only conclude that - even though I might not fully understand why - there is evolutionary value in superstitious behaviors.

Ah, an appeal to evolution. Also known as total bullshit.

So my question is: Why was superstition naturally selected for?

Remember that we did not evolve for modern society - we evolved for a rather primitive hunter-gatherer society. Under such circumstances, pattern recognition was very important - it was better to imagine a pattern where there was none than to overlook one (such pattern mostly being hidden food, predators and various other stuff).

It seems to me that having any strong opinion or belief teaches you not to think about certain things.

Yes, indeed. However, religion always tries to be self-reinforcing, which is not true for many other opinions.

[Formless]

Every religion teaches people how to live their lives (or at least parts of it) based on superstition.

While many other animals have minor capacities for superstitious behavior, humans do it best. For the life of me, I will never understand why people who claim critical thinking and rationality as some of the most important values in their lives fail to comprehend the fact that we have evolved to be more superstitious, not less. I can only conclude that - even though I might not fully understand why - there is evolutionary value in superstitious behaviors.

So my question is: Why was superstition naturally selected for?

Evolution does not work that way. Think about this: our eyes are wired backward, causing a blind spot in the middle of your vision. Evolution later came up with a workaround by having your eyes constantly move about four times a second so that a composite of the images could be assembled in the visual cortex. Does that sound like a good way to make an eye? Of course not-- you'r attributing foresight to evolution like it was a human engineer or something. In other words, making an anthropomorphic fallacy.

In reality, there are dozens of design fuckups like that in our biology and psychology (see for example every last Cognative bias in existence) because at the time they evolved they didn't hurt our survival chances. For the same reason, over half your DNA does absolutely nothing. It doesn't hurt your chances of surviving long enough to get a mate, so it stays in the gene pool. For the same reason, a monkey that believes the earth is flat is just as likely to survive and find a mate as one that knows better.

Actually, I can even tell you why we evolved a perchance for superstitious behavior-- when people are lonely, they make up imaginary friends as a defense mechanism to keep themselves sane and thus alive. That this is an evolved trait doesn't make the imaginary friend any less imaginary.

Besides, even if this argument did have merit, I would have to ask you which superstitions are to be believed in. The answer is, of course, none of them, or we wouldn't call it superstition in the first goddamn place.

It seems to me that having any strong opinion or belief teaches you not to think about certain things.

No, having a dogma does that. I very strongly believe in gravity, but that doesn't mean I won't revise my understanding of it if, say, evidence for MOND comes out. I very strongly think every death is tragic: does that mean I refuse to consider the possibility that I might be wrong? Absolutely not. Its precisely because I've thought about the subject that I hold that opinion.

This is just another psychological projection of religious people, who preach humility but to a man claim their religion is the One True Faith. Among those of us who believe in science and hate superstition, its because we're humble enough to admit the possibility that we're wrong, not in spite of it. That humility allows us to ask deep questions that believers once refused to even contemplate. Like "what if the world doesn't revolve around us?" (see: Copernicus). Or "what if we're not that different from the animals?" (see: Darwin). Or "what if I'm wrong" (see: every single scientist in existence is taught this one, its the most basic premise of the entire scientific method!)

If you don't understand, I would highly suggest the works of Carl Sagan. Of all the science popularizers out there, he is one of the best at making this point clearer than the noonday sun.

[Maj]

While many other animals have minor capacities for superstitious behavior, humans do it best.

What is your evidence for this?

Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth, by Andrew Newberg. I actually found out about the author from Bill Maher's Religulous.

Ah, an appeal to evolution. Also known as total bullshit.

I like how you just dismiss it out of hand. Truly classy. Unlike you, I think it's a question worth at least a modicum of consideration - I place a very high value on evolution and I am very curious about what makes humans human.

Remember that we did not evolve for modern society - we evolved for a rather primitive hunter-gatherer society. Under such circumstances, pattern recognition was very important - it was better to imagine a pattern where there was none than to overlook one (such pattern mostly being hidden food, predators and various other stuff).

This is actually a very good point. However, dogs can see patterns; humans claim to see God. I might chalk that up to Rochey's explanation that it's a side effect of higher intelligence, but my personal experience has demonstrated to me that while there are some situations where religion - and strong beliefs in general - can be harmful, there are some situations where they can be helpful. My grandfather, for example, died very peacefully because of his conviction that he was returning to the arms of his [deceased] wife. For him, dying was like getting on a train and going home.

It seems to me that having any strong opinion or belief teaches you not to think about certain things.

Yes, indeed. However, religion always tries to be self-reinforcing, which is not true for many other opinions.

Got another reference for you: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Carol Tavris and Eliot Aronson.

They beg to differ with your assumption.

That this is an evolved trait doesn't make the imaginary friend any less imaginary.

Whether the friend is imaginary or not is not as relevant as that fact that having one makes lonely people more sane and able to survive. So superstitious behavior does serve a purpose, and under certain circumstances it's actually vital to preserving ourselves.

This is just another psychological projection religious people can't seem to understand. Among those of us who believe in science and hate superstition, its because we're humble enough to admit the possibility that we're wrong, not in spite of it. That humility allows us to ask deep questions that believers refused to even contemplate. Like "what if the world didn't revolve around us?" (see: Copernicus). Or "what if we're not that different from the animals?" (see: Darwin). Or "what if I'm wrong" (see: every single scientist in existence is taught this one, its the most basic premise of the entire scientific method!)

See my previous reference above. The entire book is a discussion of why people - even scientists - have difficulties admitting error, especially in the face of contrary evidence. You are attributing to religion what is better attributed to humanity.

[Serafina]

Actually, a correction/additon to my post above:

It seems to me that having any strong opinion or belief teaches you not to think about certain things.

Yes, indeed. However, religion always tries to be self-reinforcing, which is not true for many other opinions.

What Maj failed to consider here and what i failed to mention is the various reasons why we have an opinion or belief. Basically, an equivocation-fallacy.
For example, i could say that i believe in evolution or gravity or that i am a lesbian or that my sister is good at school. But in all these cases, i base my opionion on knowledge and observation - that of others which has been tested millions of times, the same thing with personal observation and my own knowledge in the latter two. I also had to think about all these things, and i am willing to think about them again and change my opinion accordingly, should it be necessary.

This is very different from religious beliefs. Those are based neither on knowledge or observation - they are based on speculation and baseless claims. If we take the belief that Zeus made lightning as an example, we get the following:
People observed lightning, and they knew that it occured during thunderstorms. That was the extent of their knowledge. They then made up an explanation (God did it) and speculated further (because he's angry).

This is NOT how rational people work. They would also start with the first two observations. But rather than making something up, they would observe further in order to find more information. At some point, they might start to speculate in order to find an answer for the WHY - but then they will test that explanation, and if it doesn't work they will abandon it.

If such a rational person would repedeately observe something that looks like Zeus during thunderstorms, that person can also conclude that Zeus makes the lightning. Some speculation later, that person might conclude that large metal poles make Zeus angry, because he strikes them with lightning repedeately whenever he (a thunderstorm) comes by.
But a rational person would accept an alternate, better explanation that also explains WHY he is angry at those poles - or rather that it is not Zeus at all. The apparent image is an optical illusion and it's all just electricity.


You have to understand that rational people have what you might call beliefs, but that those beliefs are different than those of irrational (religious) people. You can use the same word for the two, but they are NOT the same.

[Serafina]

Sorry, Maj, but you don't get to appeal to two non-scientific authors. That's what we call an appeal to authority. We would also call it that if those books were written by scientists.

If they actually make a good argument, present that argument on your own.

I like how you just dismiss it out of hand. Truly classy. Unlike you, I think it's a question worth at least a modicum of consideration - I place a very high value on evolution and I am very curious about what makes humans human.

Because an appeal to evolution is not a logical argument, but a logical fallacy.
Just because we evolved in a certain way it does not have to be good - especially considering our modern society. There are dozens of examples where evolution produced results that could be vastly better, but aren't - the eye is a classical example, see above.

Remember that we did not evolve for modern society - we evolved for a rather primitive hunter-gatherer society. Under such circumstances, pattern recognition was very important - it was better to imagine a pattern where there was none than to overlook one (such pattern mostly being hidden food, predators and various other stuff).

This is actually a very good point. However, dogs can see patterns; humans claim to see God. I might chalk that up to Rochey's explanation that it's a side effect of higher intelligence, but my personal experience has demonstrated to me that while there are some situations where religion - and strong beliefs in general - can be harmful, there are some situations where they can be helpful. My grandfather, for example, died very peacefully because of his conviction that he was returning to the arms of his [deceased] wife. For him, dying was like getting on a train and going home.

*Sigh* You ignored what i wrote.
Instead, you answered with a red herring (to the actual quote, albeit it's relevant to the discussion).

Yes, religion can make people happy. But as i said numerous times, you can achieve the same results in other ways - for example, he could have died peacefully because he had a satisfying life or because he had someone he loved at his side (like someone from his family) or for various other reasons. You don't need religion to die peacefully.

In case you try to chalk that up as another appeal to evolution - just because something evolved that way it is not necessarily good. Evolution is not a deity that is worshipped, it's just a natural process. And like everything else in nature, it is completely without morality - or do you think that gravity has a morality, or thunderstorms or the strong nuclear force?

[Formless]

Whether the friend is imaginary or not is not as relevant as that fact that having one makes lonely people more sane and able to survive. So superstitious behavior does serve a purpose, and under certain circumstances it's actually vital to preserving ourselves.

No, actually it just means that having human company is vital to being ourselves. In fact, in a sense that effect I'm referring to could be described as giving up sanity in one area (your ability to distinguish reality from figments of your own imagination) to preserve it in others. It says nothing about superstition, or whether or not its vital to being human. It just is.

Consider: there is another defense mechanism out there called dissociation that among other things is supposed to help protect people in times of trauma. However, that same mechanism, when taken to pathological levels, can cause outright amnesia or contribute to the symptoms of PTSD. Is that a good thing, just because it is an evolved trait?

See my previous reference above. The entire book is a discussion of why people - even scientists - have difficulties admitting error, especially in the face of contrary evidence. You are attributing to religion what is better attributed to humanity.

You are right-- it is best attributed to humanity. But that doesn't make it a good thing, or a point in favor of religion.

This reminds me of a quote by James Morrow: "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, its an argument against foxholes."

[Simon_Jester]

I would argue that "belief in God" in the generic sense is not harmful except for some definition of "harm" that relies very heavily on opportunity costs. And in that case you could call anything harmful: asserting that knitting circles are harmful because knitting is inefficient and thus a waste of resources, for instance.

What is harmful* is not just the existence of religious beliefs, it's religion armed, religion mobilized to do battle, religion stampeding through someone's civilization with the cry "Deus Vult!" on its lips. The problem here is that we've seen essentially the same kind of harm caused by secular philosophies: ANY movement can mobilize an army of idiots to hurt people. It's a problem with idiocy, not with any particular belief system.

I'm not sure one could get rid of that problem by getting rid of religion, because I suspect the number of self-congratulatory idiots wouldn't change very much if you did.

*And realistically we're going to see this happening as long as "belief in God" exists, but I think it's worth drawing a distinction between the two anyway.

[Formless]

The harm can also be measured in terms of mental health. There are lots of culture bound disorders around the world that are clearly influenced by the region's particular spiritual, supernatural, or superstitious beliefs like spirit possessions and such. Though religion isn't the only factor, it often is found somewhere on the chain of cause and effect.