Religious Belief a Brain Condition

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-22 09:21pm

I like psychology, but it can kiss my ass in that department. I said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who wants to completely determinize(word?) human behavior is trying to take away personal responsibility i.e., "my genes made me do it so please don't imprison me. I'll be good from now on...honest."

Of course we're all input/output machines in a way, but how would we perceive reality/do anything/exist at all otherwise? Something doesn't come in, it can't come out, right?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-22 10:13pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:I like psychology, but it can kiss my ass in that department. I said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who wants to completely determinize(word?) human behavior is trying to take away personal responsibility i.e., "my genes made me do it so please don't imprison me. I'll be good from now on...honest."

Leap of logic. This doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for his actions in any way. It is simply trying to understand why humans act the way they do. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is some other element other than our brains which plays a part in our behavior, feel free, but don't pretend that studies like this hold no validity.

Of course we're all input/output machines in a way, but how would we perceive reality/do anything/exist at all otherwise? Something doesn't come in, it can't come out, right?

I don't follow.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-22 10:19pm

For centuries, men have argued that personal responsibility must be tied to this thing called "free will". This is nothing more than a perversion upon the concept that a person who is coerced to do something illegal at gunpoint cannot be held responsible.

In reality, since disincentive to commit societally destructive acts is necessary for law, we can and should criminalize such activities regardless of whether you subscribe to determinism. It is a red-herring in such matters.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-22 11:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:In reality, since disincentive to commit societally destructive acts is necessary for law, we can and should criminalize such activities regardless of whether you subscribe to determinism. It is a red-herring in such matters.

Right on. Besides, even if such flimsy rationalizations based on determinism were somehow relevant, determinism would simply cut both ways: we "can't help ourselves" from convicting them for crimes, either.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-23 01:06am

Pardon me for the leap in logic. I get too worked up sometimes. It's not that I really care too much about the labels themselves, it's the misuse and subsequent reductionist determinism of the criminal's defense that angers me. By all means we should punish illegal behavior regardless of whatever the instigator's excuse was. It's these irresponsible assholes that deserve a big bitch-slap.

Of course we're all input/output machines in a way, but how would we perceive reality/do anything/exist at all otherwise? Something doesn't come in, it can't come out, right?

I don't follow.[/quote]Neither do I. I forgot what I meant to say. Since that was the best way I could think of to type it at the time, it wasn't worth typing at all.

[BL]Phalanx · Post by **[BL]Phalanx** » 2003-03-23 03:02am

You can't blame a rock for falling or water for the way it flows... it can't choose.

If the human mind is riding on the same kind of momentum and is just a complex series of reactions, with no real control over the reactions, then we're all automatons.

I don't claim to know one way or another whether we're automatons or not. I just like to assume we're not.

If my finger pulls the trigger on the gun that shoots someone else dead, where do you assign the blame? The bullet? The gun? The finger? The nerves that transmitted the signal to the finger? The chemical reactions in the brain that sent the signal?

For some people, they think it begins at the chemicals in the brain, and they think it "ends" there, as well... that the ultimate origin of the actions is in the reactions of chemicals in your head. They could be right.

But then who could claim credit for achievements either? It's like a computer program claiming credit for its success in solving a problem. It'd also be like blaming the program itself when it crashes. But hey... we could still all be automatons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-23 03:17am

[BL]Phalanx wrote:You can't blame a rock for falling or water for the way it flows... it can't choose.

Blame is irrelevant. You can still control the movement of that water. That is analogous to the use of laws.

If the human mind is riding on the same kind of momentum and is just a complex series of reactions, with no real control over the reactions, then we're all automatons.

I don't claim to know one way or another whether we're automatons or not. I just like to assume we're not.

False dilemma fallacy. Even if your behaviour is deterministic, that doesn't make you an automaton. You still respond intelligently to stimuli, hence the usefulness of legal deterrent to criminal actions.

If my finger pulls the trigger on the gun that shoots someone else dead, where do you assign the blame? The bullet? The gun? The finger? The nerves that transmitted the signal to the finger? The chemical reactions in the brain that sent the signal?

Guns are not sentient and not deterred by legal systems, therefore it is pointless to punish guns. People, however, are deterred. Therefore, a system of laws can and should punish people for their actions.

For some people, they think it begins at the chemicals in the brain, and they think it "ends" there, as well... that the ultimate origin of the actions is in the reactions of chemicals in your head. They could be right.

But then who could claim credit for achievements either? It's like a computer program claiming credit for its success in solving a problem. It'd also be like blaming the program itself when it crashes. But hey... we could still all be automatons.

You confuse "no such thing as truly free will" with "automaton".

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-23 03:22am

You still have the willpower to do or not to do something. That's what would matter in the case of us being automatons. If we disregarded that, we'd be in a world of shit. A car doesn't have a will of its own; that's why people are blamed for running down small children, not Chevolet.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-23 03:52am

Cthulhu-chan wrote:Aw, afraid you aren't quite so in control of your actions as you thought? Sorry to say that the way your brain is wired determines how you'll behave. Quite frankly, this research doesn't surprise me at all. Have you ever seen some one having a "religious experience"? Quite a lot of them look very much like they are experiencing a seizure.

I don't think this absolves anybody of responsibility for thier actions, though. Quite frankly I don't think insanity or retardation is much of an excuse either, but I'm a bastard like that.

Genetic determinism is hardly a proven field.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2003-03-25 02:30am

Who said anything about genetics? I was refering to the structure of the brain, as influenced by all factors. Genetics is merely one of them, but chemical balance during fetal development, physical trauma, psychological trauma, mind-altering chemicals and others also factor in. That genetics will have an overarching effect on the baseline structure of the brain is hardly a point for dispute, merely how far-reaching the effect is. It also happens to be the factor we have the least control over (though that is changing, whether we like it or not).

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2003-03-25 12:45pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:You still have the willpower to do or not to do something. That's what would matter in the case of us being automatons. If we disregarded that, we'd be in a world of shit. A car doesn't have a will of its own; that's why people are blamed for running down small children, not Chevolet.

In other words, what we call "Free Will" is actually an extension of sentience?

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-03-27 06:58pm

Okay, moral bullshit aside, I'd like to see someone take this theory and apply it to principle, mayhaps turn it into a drug. That way I can have my own supply of "Proust in a Can" to use on the next tweaker who comes into my neighborhood. I imagine something like the following scene:

"I said get the hell away from my table with that shit."

"Says who?"

<spray>

"His emminence. In fact, I want you to take that, throw it away, never even touch it again, and, take a vow of chastity. Go on."

"Yes, my Lord."

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 07:23pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Okay, moral bullshit aside, I'd like to see someone take this theory and apply it to principle, mayhaps turn it into a drug. That way I can have my own supply of "Proust in a Can" to use on the next tweaker who comes into my neighborhood. I imagine something like the following scene:

"I said get the hell away from my table with that shit."

"Says who?"

<spray>

"His emminence. In fact, I want you to take that, throw it away, never even touch it again, and, take a vow of chastity. Go on."

"Yes, my Lord."

You mean "Proust-in-a-can" isn't available to civilian consumers yet? Hmm... there's some money to be made in that! Someone get me Dupont and Raytheon on the phone NOW!

Edited 'cuz I fucked up.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-03-28 07:20am

*Returns to the board.*

I once hallucinated I was the universe and was slowly disintegrating. That was odd.*

*No. Really.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-03-28 07:21am

I have no problem accepting the notion that being a fundie is a symptom of a mental disorder. All the more recent studies on religious behavior seem to indicate this anyway.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-28 08:43pm

I had a dream like that.

Doesn't anyone who deviates from social norms have a mental disorder? It's kinda subjective...After all, they think they're perfectly fine.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-28 08:44pm

Now If you mean our good friend Phelps, yes, that is DEFINITELY a mental disorder.