Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?
The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of “patternicity,” which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns
in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids.
The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.
But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms.
Agenticity carries us far beyond the spirit world. The Intelligent Designer is said to be an invisible agent who created life from the top down. Aliens are often portrayed as powerful beings coming down from on high to warn us of our impending self-destruction. Conspiracy theories predictably include hidden agents at work behind the scenes, puppet masters pulling political and economic strings as we dance to the tune of the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers or the Illuminati. Even the belief that government can impose top-down measures to rescue the economy is a form of agenticity, with President Barack Obama being touted as “the one” with almost messianic powers who will save us.
There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them, well documented in the new book SuperSense (HarperOne, 2009) by University of Bristol psychologist Bruce Hood. Examples: children believe that the sun can think and follows them around; because of such beliefs, they often add smiley faces on sketched suns. Adults typically refuse to wear a mass murderer’s sweater, believing that “evil” is a supernatural force that imparts its negative agency to the wearer (and, alternatively, that donning Mr. Rogers’s cardigan will make you a better person). A third of transplant patients believe that the donor’s personality is transplanted with the organ. Genital-shaped foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency. Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions.
See what we're tweeting about
241 Comments
Add CommentThe following may be a humorous expression of how false patterns may evoke lasting effects. Herman Melville writing in Chapter 69 of Moby Dick; of course through the eyes of Ishmael after the whale carcass has been set adrift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nor is this the end. Desecrated as the body is, a vengeful ghost survives and hovers over it to scare. Espied by some timid man-of-war or blundering discovery-vessel from afar, when the distance obscuring the swarming fowls, nevertheless still shows the white mass floating in the sun, and the white spray heaving high against it; straightway the whale's unharming corpse, with trembling fingers is set down in the log- shoals, rocks, and breakers hereabout: beware! And for years afterwards, perhaps, ships shun the place; leaping over it as silly sheep leap over a vacuum, because their leader originally leaped there when a stick was held. There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; there's the story of your obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed on the earth, and now not even hovering in the air! There's orthodoxy!
Thus, while in life the great whale's body may have been a real terror to his foes, in his death his ghost becomes a powerless panic to a world.
Are you a believer in ghosts, my friend? There are other ghosts than the Cock-Lane one, and far deeper men than Doctor Johnson who believe in them."
Avast shipmates! Patterns and Patternicities abound. LOL
Ishmael, Jr.
I want to believe that there is a supernatural being that watches on high and has me in his/ her thoughts, but all of the ridiculous people, with their fake antics that act in his name keep me from taking the plunge into "faith". I however, do not have the ability to say with certainty that there is not a greater being because there is no evidence, that I am aware of, saying that there is not. Also, the presence of these beliefs, no matter what title they fall under, has helped in the developing of the civilized and controlled minds of we humans. No matter how silly somethings may sound, the good that comes from believing that this life means more than what can be scientifically proven, far out weighs the bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to believe that there is a supernatural being that watches on high and has me in his/ her thoughts, but all of the ridiculous people, with their fake antics that act in his name keep me from taking the plunge into "faith". I however, do not have the ability to say with certainty that there is not a greater being because there is no evidence, that I am aware of, saying that there is not. Also, the presence of these beliefs, no matter what title they fall under, has helped in the developing of the civilized and controlled minds of we humans. No matter how silly somethings may sound, the good that comes from believing that this life means more than what can be scientifically proven, far out weighs the bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I am happy to be a believer. My life on earth is joyful for I am contented about Zeus's creation and that I have a bold fancy to hold on. Oh and your life as a nonbeliever on earth may be as good too: freedom and freedom you call them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut after this life, what will come? If Zeus truly is absent, I will not lose anything but time. I relish the emptiness of nonexistence for pain will be no more. But if Zeus does present, I will claim His promises and what about you, my friend? Where is your Valhalla?
Probably then, believing about Zeus's existence may really confer survival advantage for the theists cannot say I am not one of them, and smite me for my non-belief.
@ Osler5;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyesyes, Pascal's wager. It's old, it's refuted ad nauseum. But even so, please answer this then:
- Why is "your" god the real one? Maybe the Jews are right, or the Muslims, or Buddhist, or Vikings etc.. (*hoping for the last one.)
- What if god is a scientist? And so he will reward those who did not mindlessly believe in him based only on anecdotal evidence, but rather those who demanded proper proof.
In both cases; what about you then? I think you should follow the practices of as my religions as you can squeeze into one day, just to be safe..
@Osler5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And I am happy to be a believer. My life on earth is joyful for I am contented about God's creation"
- wonderful, I am truly happy for you and your contentedness. I, too, am content; my contentedness comes from elsewhere but there is no need to measure each source. Let us be happy to be content with life.
" [...] I have a trustworthy promise to hold on. Oh and your life as a nonbeliever on earth may be as good too: freedom and freedom you call them."
- Trustworthy? Truly you are a believer, but in whom do you trust? Yourself, of course, yes? For if there is chance that any human may lie, why would these liars avoid the church: How do you know that I, a devout Atheist, have not entered the seminary, become a priest, and am imposing my will subtly on my flock? Perhaps your faith is in doctrine conceived in this way.
"But after this life, what will come? If God truly is absent, both of us will not lose anything. It's just unbearable emptiness of nonexistence. "
- Oh but we both will have lost much. Life itself is what we lose. After this, if there is nothing, there will be nothing and we shall have lost everything. This everything should be cherished, it should be embraced with all honesty and courage and it should not be taken lightly as the simple unimportant pretext to the death that follows.
"But if God does present [sic], I will claim His promises and what about you, my friend?"
- Now, which God do you believe in again? Because if God does exist and would only reward (is that a proper term?) those who praised his glory in the pre-life that you are living now, then how are you so confident that Your God is The God to praise? Is it because men have battled and those who claimed support for Your God won those battles? Christianity: I hate it more than most others due to the historical abuses enacted by Christians. Were I to choose a faith today perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster would compel me, or even Jedi, but Christ? No I think not. Too much blood on the hands of his supposed worshipers.
"Probably then, believing about God's existence may really confer survival advantage"
- Perhaps. Or at least CLAIMING belief in the God of choice for the ruling party. Otherwise, for many years, you may have been tortured and murdered because you were a 'heathen'.
-- personally, I think religion is fine in moderation, it's a mental crutch to lean on when a person is unable to cope with the stresses of life. My issues with religion come from those who treat it as truth that MUST be believed by others --
My intuition tells me that it is ridiculous not only to believe in a god's existence, but that a god may even exist - a god who is super powerful but also super concerned about the minutiae of our terrestrial lives? But for many, intuition inclines them towards this or that superstition. And what of it? No one will change the other's mind. And for every one enlightened, there will be an abundance of those for whom reason is a feeble resource.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis leaves an interesting question. What about those of us who know that all of the "invisible agents" are baloney? Many, like myself, have always known this. Since as early as I can remember being able to rub two thoughts together, I have not believed in the IAs. I am, almost literally, a born atheist. I have never needed any of it. I tried to believe much of it, but the more I investigated the more ridiculous it all looked. ALL of it. The whole range from Atlantis to Zeus is a load of hooey. I was born without it, tried to find it (because society tried hard to inculcate me), found that it was nothing but crap, dropped it and never looked back. I know there are others like me. What does this say about us? Naturally, I like to think that we are a more highly evolved version of homo sapiens - no need for supernatural explanations or super-being babysitters. Ah, but then you get the inevitable, "oh, so you think you're better than we are?" Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but, yeah, sort of. Let's put it this way, I ("I" in a collective sense) will never, ever blow up a bus full of children because my particular supernatural puppet master says to do so. I will never force your kids to learn fairy tales in place of actual scientific facts. I will never burn anyone suspected of being a witch/warlock/blasphemer/heretic/apostate/etc (or actually even suspect them of such imaginary transgressions). These, among many other things motivated by ignorant supernatural beliefs. So, yeah, I think this does make us a little better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article, Michael. Hits the proverbial nail on the head.... mostly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, since you're a libertarian with a political agenda (see the book "The Mind of the Market" as well as http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/michael_shermers_libertarianism), you couldn't resist a crack about Obama's economic policies. (As usual, you neglected to mention that the current economic crisis was caused by those on your end of the political spectrum, including Randians like Alan Greenspan.) And claiming that the public and media portray Obama as "messianic" is a common right-wing straw man.
Why inject your quaint political philosophy into your otherwise excellent skeptical writings? That really harms the perception of you as an objective observer -- and harms the burgeoning skeptical movement as well. Let's stick to the science and not descend to that lowest form of human discourse: political punditry.
I agree Discipline. Skeptics may tend to be Liberal or Libertarian, but both groups need to remember that political philosophies are not skepticism. Your philosophies may make specific claims that can be tested, (I think laissez-faire economics has fail its 8 year experiment), but in general the difference between Liberal and Libertarian is one of subjective value, not objective truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA positive aspect of agenicity (or anthropomorphism) is the design of interfaces that "hack into" our expectations of social agents (Duffy, 2003).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExamples are social robots and educational avartars.
Just think that it deserves to be mentioned.
You tell him discipline!! and ObiDamnKenobi " What if god is a scientist? " I love what you did there, I'm going to use that next time I get hit with that BS Pascal's wager. If I decided to follow your logic and say hey I got nothing to lose by believing in God and start going to church, practicing faith.. etc. The main problem with this idea is that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, he will know that I was only pretending to get on his good side. So wouldn't he send me to hell anyway?? According to the bible, the Lord knows what's in your heart regardless of what you SAY or DO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay first I an Liberal and I did vote for Obama but he did get a free pass from most of the liberal news outlets that is a fact and mabey it was backlash from 8 years of News Corp. and other right wing news outlets doing the same for W. Please don't tell me that you fail to belive in "I scratch your back you scratch mine" because thats how business is done at least in the US but I imagine that it applies to all political systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond if you look back at the last 100 years at least in US and western europe closely I find it hard belive that all the fake reasons for entering into wars, the corporatization and the fact that most of the people in power are crooks happened buy chance I don't think so. Someone is pulling the strings I'm looking at you international banking system. Why after we created the FED (a privately owned company by the way) to stabilize the american econmy did we we suddenly go into the worst depression in our history?
I don't belive in "God" as organized religion has dubed him but I belive that there is a spriritual side of life and there will always be things that science can't explain because more often then not when you answer a question it just brings up more questions.
Matt
From the perspective of religious belief, secular humanism may appear to be a bleak and essentially negative doctrine, with no God, no angels or saints, and no afterlife. Religion, believers point out, affords comfort and solace to individuals undergoing hardships and difficult times, ameliorates suffering and grief with its often beautiful hymns and solemn rituals, and also provides hope of happiness in a future state with family, loved ones, and friends. Secular humanists respond by maintaining that their views are not negative but realistic. On the positive side, they need not question why an all-powerful and benevolent deity snuffed out the life of a two-year-old with leukemia, or sent a destructive fire, hurricane, or earthquake to kill thousands. To the secular humanist natural physical forces alone cause death and disaster. God has nothing to do with these terrible events. Secular humanists likewise need not ask why God has permitted genocide and so many horrific wars throughout history, since they maintain that human beings themselves are responsible for war and violence. Supernatural agencies had nothing to do with these atrocities. To the humanist, people do not live miserable lives because of a sin committed eons ago or in a former life, nor should they suffer degradation and poverty in this life to achieve some hoped-for bliss in the hereafter. Though the prospect of future bliss in heaven is dismissed, so to is the prospect of eternal excruciating pain and damnation for untold millions. Secular humanism focuses on this life and insists that justice requires that a portion of the earths abundance be available to each and every individual, and that, rather than praying for Gods intervention in natural disasters or human affairs, we must use our own resources to improve life and allay disease and poverty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo then, this means those kumbaya-chanting religionists are not really as dumb as they look; they are just exhibiting type I errors?
Be that as it may, I'm siding with ChrisJones on this one.
I love how folks seem to think that simply ceasing to exist after death would be a horrible thing. It wouldn't BE anything. The only suffering that will come after your death will be that of the people who miss you here on earth. Does anyone remember suffering from non-existence BEFORE being born? Surely someone will respond, "But we didn't have a soul yet". Perhaps, and if we don't have one after death, I suspect it'll be every bit as non-agonizing/horrible/etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut hey, only one way to find out for sure, and in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy this existence and all it has to offer!
Supernatural belief in itself is no problem but the existence of a supernatural agent has been used for thousands of years (and still is used) to exert social control and maintain political power. People claim to speak on behalf of God to enslave us to their will and sometimes back it up with ungodly violence. Although it does have the advantage of reducing anti-social behaviour and uniting society I still think the balance sheet is firmly on the debit side. Time to start believing in ourselves. In any case the idea that a being capable of creating/designing the entire universe is so insecure and conceited that it needs obeisance from self-aware apes is so laughable it could only have come from a human brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer presents a very logical theory, how to test? Assuming thorough consistent results proving it up, the how to disseminate in the face of the biological underpinnings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas the Roman system of anthropomorphized ideals of the state effective? For a while, but it was eventually washed out by some competing more diffuse mystical notions.
this comment is for those who want to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am an intelligent, educated, liberal, sceptical, person who happens to believe in non-corporal beings. i was fascinated by the article because i understand the concept of random patterns appearing significant, but hadn't understood why.
so why do i believe? 1. it comforts me. 2. MY random patterns of events ARE significant :-) 3. i have seen and heard non-corporal beings (which i assume someone else could also explain away biologically) 4. pascal's wager (which i hadn't known about, thank you obidamnkenobi, but believed in with my own logic. 5. even the sciences lead me to the probability that they do exist. (the fact that our body is the tiniest amount of matter held apart and together by energy, the fact that there is so much of our universe that we are incapable of experiencing, etc)
in conclusion: they do exist, they don't care whether you believe or not, some watch over us. and in a mere 100 years, we will all know the Truth. (or not)
Interesting then, that a recent study found non-believers to be less anxoius about death than those who claim religious affliation...? It would seem to indicate that embracing dogma (and all its trappings) has little significance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...non-believers to be less anxoius about death than those who claim religious affliation..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be that they are not concerned over meeting st-peter-at-the-gate or equivilent and having to explain themselves?
@lexicon21
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin support of your comment, i am referencing this "recent study":
http://gurlx.com/h0a
[google books]
page 143 shows visually a summary of the strong correlation of death anxiety and religious belief and attendance. yup, if you believe the priest and go to church you tend to be scared witless that you'll die and be judged poorly.
Very interesting. I have to read it again to have a solid opinion if I agree. I have to say it sounds to me the words of the article are echoing the message: "they don't exist. don't believe it." And the article gets vaguer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to sustain his concocted notion of evolutionary "patternicity", Mr. Schermer will have to show that perception of nonexistent patterns is generally more survivalistic than imperception of existent patterns. Mr. Schermer offers one cheesy illustration (involving snakes in the grass, or some such), but while this may be satisfactory for Mr. Schermer and his disciples, it would hardly sway a skeptic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, Mr. Schermer and his ilk routinely make the claim that religion and religionists are responsible for more death and destruction than any other group. (This claim is bogus. Atheists have been much more virulently destructive. But still...) Thus, Mr. Schermer refutes his own case: According to him, "patternicity" and "agenticity" would actually be the sources of what he concludes to be the least survivalist behaviour of humanity - religion.
Rational coherence is, however, unimportant here. It is much more important to the Mr. Schermers of the world to find new and subtler ways to couch their anti-religious bigotry in pseudo-scientific terminology.
C'est la vie. When will the next atheist pogrom be?
I cannot say for certain whether or not there is some over riding intelligence behind the Universe, but I do feel confidant in saying that, if there is, then there is not one person in this world who knows anything more about the purpose or intent of that intelligence than I do and that anyone who says they do is throwing darts at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Shermer makes excellent points, but forgets one: We are social primates, wired with a strong sense of social hierarchy which forces us to continually search for the "alpha" to whom we should show deference. Ever since grew enough cortex to realize that the alpha human had no real power, we've been searching for the "real" alpha who has true power over us - a god. We are wired this way and it works together with our mammalian tendency toward Type I errors to produce an almost universal "comfort" in religious beliefs of some sort. If we can figure out a way to test for the tendency to identify Invisible Agents among other animals, I predict we would find more solitary mammals will show less tendency to IA than those with strong (even if fluid) social hierarchies, even when controlling for percentage of neocortex. Do tigers show less tendency toward IA than lions? Do orangs show less IA than chimps? Do atheists show less IA than catholics or krishnas or branch davidians or wiccans? Do national park rangers in Alaska show less IA than NYC school teachers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre those with low IA as children less likely to become religious adults or choose careers with less hierarchy? A skeptic wants it tested.
OneEye, when I read an article like this one I dont read it wanting to believe in what it contains. Id like there to be a god. Really. It would be wonderful (though maybe not the weird self crucifying, homophobic, paranoid, racist deity of the bible etc). You and I could even be buddies! But Im an atheist because Im a fan of logic. This article interests because there is a thread of reasonability to it. It might be true, meh, may not be, but it should be investigated. Its a million times better than any religious answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound like you want to believe something however and hardly seem to be the wonderful skeptic you want to make out you are.
Oh btw how have atheist killed more people then religion? Are you gona trot out hitler and Saltin? Please....
I think that religion is a form of "agenticity" as he refers to it, but that it is not necessarily a bad one as it forms a basis by which people express a tribal feeling of wanting to belong to something greater than themselves. This in itself would have been a valuable survival instinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the abuse sets in when someone realizes that they can bend and abuse agenticity for their own gains.
More like fear ,lack of reason and lack of proper use of discrimination.Those that lean back on belief of god as a "safety net" do not deserve to think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"claim that religion and religionists are responsible for more death and destruction than any other group. (This claim is bogus. Atheists have been much more virulently destructive. But still...)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to read some examples. Can you give any? I will be waiting. Good luck. Oh, and don't start with Nazis. Their movement was not atheistic. It was actually a pseudo-Pagan-Judeo-Christian hybrid movement. And you may mention communism, but that was not born of atheism, just correlated with it. So to quote someone else:
"How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?
No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
-about.com
Ether: Atheist pogroms in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, and South America have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in the 20th Century. The record is clear, accept it or not. Never trust an atheist with a gun! (BTW, I don't include Hitler in the list because he was an occultist, not an atheist.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour perception of "reasonableness" in Mr. Shermer's article represents nothing more than your desire to find it reasonable. Personally, I think that it is grade-school stuff - a sop to those who are clutching at straws (or clutching at straw men - pardon the mixed metaphor).
I am a born-again, Christian, and make no secret of it. But this does not stop me from being a skeptic - and a pretty jolly good one. Nor (contra posthumandeus) does it revoke my license to think.
No-one needs to be convinced to believe in God. Everyone does, by nature - as recent SciAm articles have shown. Even when I was an atheist, I harbored a secret resentment and anger toward the God I claimed not to believe in. It was when I put my TRUST in God ("the weird self crucifying, homophobic, paranoid, racist deity of the bible etc") that my life was made new.
You can claim that Shermer's views are "a million times better than any religious 'answer'" if you please, but all you are doing in saying so is flaunting your prejudices. Michael Shermer is a fine showman, but only an earnest desire to believe would make his pontifications seem sensible.
Cerebrl - "No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou miss the point: In each of the communist governments, a concerted effort has been made to persecute and eliminate religion and religionists. This is public knowledge, and easily substantiated. Stop being so evasive. I am ready to admit that people killed people in the name of Christ. Are you going to be a coward and not accept your heritage?
"claim that religion and religionists are responsible for more death and destruction than any other group. (This claim is bogus. Atheists have been much more virulently destructive. But still...)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to read your evidence to support your claim. Can you provide some events that people were killed in the name of atheism, this so called virulent destruction? Good luck on that one, but before you start ... you cannot use Nazism because that was a pseudo-Pagan-Judeo-Christian hybrid movement. You also shouldn't use communism becuase of the following reason (copied from about.com as I didn't feel like writing out the whole explaination):
"How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?
No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
[Cerebrl]
It was evolutionarily advantageous for schizophrenics to see monsters and ghosts. I think fear of death is what motivates the belief in ghosts and gods, but that anticipation and fear serves the specie's survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisasdfasdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists don't have "a desire to believe." They have a desire to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right. They aren't afraid of hell. That's because they understand that we evolved and once dead you become worm food. Enough lies, thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because we cannot see the billions of subatomic particles vibrating inside the desk in front of us, does not mean they do not exist. Nor are they supernatural. Science has proven they are part of the natural world. Science will likewise prove the invisible God's existence as natural, too, when we discover He Is ("I AM") in every particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Atheist pogroms in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, and South America have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in the 20th Century. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, refer me to a published reference that proves this point.
"Are you going to be a coward and not accept your heritage?"
Wow, aren't you getting childish. When did this get personal? Funny how the atheist is more respectful than the theist. Ironic isn't it? As far as cowardice and heritage, I have no clue what are you trying to infer. I don't actually consider myself an atheist because I can't prove that god doesn't exist as much as you can't prove she does. I just consider myself a secular humanist. In other words, I don't believe in a need for god.
Anyways, I am still awaiting your reference material for the 200 million people killed in the name of atheism.
[Cerebrl]
The pleasant outcomes of a belief, is not proof that the belief is founded on fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter how unpleasant the truth is, it remains the truth.
This applies to the fact that we do not know that gods exist
I am not sure how this article became an argument about the existence of God, but it is far more than this. Skeptics are often skeptics it seems because they cannot believe in things they cannot fathom. Having joined the realm of non traditional doctors after 6 years of "real" medicine, I have heard too many times that hypnosis, acupuncture, chi gong, and homeopathy doesn't work because "real MD's" and researches can't figure out how they would work. Skeptics are the same groups that kept science from evolving as much of the church (the same group that seems to be ridiculed here) were when they couldn't believe the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Skeptics couldn't/wouldn't believe in germs in spite of the work of Lister because the technology to measure such things wasn't available, therefore they couldn't exist. If skeptics had the last word, science and thought would die. These are the same guys who didn't think the mind and stress can cause rashes, now the field of psychoneuroimmunology makes the argument superfluous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to who kills the most people, I don't think Christians can take all the credit, the Taliban forces the religion violently upon people, Darfur isn't so much about god, but intolerance, which those following Christian principles would object. The greatest mass murderer may have been Stalin, don't think that was religious in nature.
Skepticism is healthy in a way, but there is a big difference between skeptical and close minded. I was skeptical that alternative medicine held any answers at all, but I did have an open mind. As to personalities of transplant recipients having personalities of the donor,Professor Schwartz of the University of Arizona (his credentials far out way anything here), studied this and found that at least 1 out of ten patients developed this. The skeptics answer to this-"I don't believe it" therefore it didn't/can't happen.
As to religion, belief in God isn't a prerequisite for heaven, God would't keep out those who haven't heard about him and weren't given the choice. I did ask that of a gifted and dedicated minister who told me the bible says the earth won't end until all are given the chance to hear the word of God and I don't think the Tali's are going to let that happen in Afghanistan anytime soon (don't peg your sights on 2012 I guess).
Why there are people who believe that can always explain Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World ? I am curious, what ultimate natural order is already known by the great skeptical gurus from Scientific American that make them analyze every belief of humans as mentally impaired? Our scientific intuition is not always right either (history proves that). Nobody holds the final answer for anything and maybe never will. We can make theoretical predictions about Nature one step at a time and with huge difficulties. So how do you really know? You dont but your arrogance does not allow you to see that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may or may not be a god or gods, but - given that there is/are for the sake of discussion - whatever gives people the right to insist that others believe as they do? How do you know what god wants? note: citing religious writings at this point makes a circular argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know if there is or isn't, and I doubt anybody else does, either. So - keep your religion to yourself. You have no right to inflict it on anybody else.
That encompasses everything from knocking on their doors to killing them.
But, what if your wrong? The time wasted, the effort to "buy" your way into heaven. And to think that even living a life of evil on earth, the rules say all will be forgiven by accepting the invisible space daddy. What a deal if your name is Hitler?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you give as much effort in protecting mother nature while here, knowing or believing in a paradise after you die? Would a person that knows & believes this is a one shot deal give more effort in keeping his environment clean & healthy?
What value can you give a book, the 27 chapters of the NT, which 19 of them have been shown to be forgeries?
Everyone has the right to his opinion, but no man has the right to the wrong facts!
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that Faith does not prove anything" Friedrich Nietzxche
Cerebrl - Yes, I was just noticing how respectful and impersonal you are compared to me. I will take you as my pattern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as proof of my point: I assume that you won't accept anything written by a Christian or any non-atheist, so that makes my task a little harder. On the other hand, the facts are all on my side, so all you are doing is prolonging the inevitable.
The Wikipedia article on Communist persecution of Christians (especially the Orthodox church) is a good starter with some decent references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union. The Khmer Rouge article is also a good additive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge. Similar articles should easily be found on Eastern Bloc countries, China, Cuba, the Shining Path, etc. Do you really need me to be more explicit? (And by the way, why are we belaboring the obvious here? Is this some sort of Holocaust-denial-type conspiracy theory?)
History clearly shows that, wherever an atheist revolution has prevailed over the populace of a nation or region, those in control have perpetrated merciless campaigns of anti-religion in which the religious were oppressed, tortured, and martyred, and church properties were destroyed or stolen away and used for other purposes. And it is still going on today. This is not hard to ascertain. So why on earth are you questioning it?
By the way, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that you believe that Christianity has been responsible for millions of murders throughout history. If so, would you care to cite your sources?
Respectfully yours...
kauaikit - FYI, Christians don't have to buy their way into heaven. The way was bought for us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, as a Christian, I take special care of God's creation because it is his, not mine. I honor the creator by respecting his rights over his creation.
Third, which 19 books of the New Testament have been proven to be forgeries? How and by whom?
OneEye, I forget who said it but the claim, "with or without god, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things - but only with religion will good people do bad things" seems very appropriate. There have been those who rejected religion (usually because it challenged their authority) and committed horrible crimes, Stalin, Hitler. But they didn't do it because the church of atheism told them that it was their responsibility as good atheist to do it. They didn't read the book of atheism and discovered that by committing mass murder they would be rewarded with 50 white grapes. Nothing about atheism imparts a set a values, or implies a code of conduct. Atheism says one thing and one thing only, “There is no god!” The rest is up to the individual. If that individual commits a crime, it is not because of atheism, it is because that person has a character flaw. Similarly, if they do a good thing, it is not because they have the word of atheism in their heart; it is because they personally hold values that are esteemed by society. On the other hand, the Judaeo-Christian bible is very clear about what it expects from its adherents;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44)
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death” (Exodus 35:2)
This is not individuals making bad choices this is good people being commanded to do evil by their religion under pain of eternal torture.
Robert: Dueling quotes: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” - Dostoevsky. Atheism systematically excludes the only possible basis for any moral value: God's approval (or disapproval). Atheism is at least tacitly honest in refusing to incorporate a moral system, since apart from God's proclamation, you can not know what is right or wrong. Is it right to keep a slave? How do you know? Is it wrong to kill a man for Sabbath-breaking? How do you know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an antithesis to your original aphorism: "With or without god, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things - but only God can make a bad man good." I am a living example of that - as are thousands, perhaps millions of others.
By the way, you seem to have an emotional reaction to the idea of hell. I'm not surprised. Would you like to be free of that?
So what is worse, a religious person who belittles those who disagree, or an atheist who belittles those who disagree. I see a lot of ridicule from both sides in these comments and it does not promote healthy, rational debate of this subject. When we strongly disagree with something, why do we have to resort to ridicule? To debate intelligently, it should be your goal to bring your opponent's blood pressure down, instead of raising it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOneEye: "Atheism systematically excludes the only possible basis for any moral value: God's approval (or disapproval)." What?!? I don't refrain from killing people and stealing things because I am afraid of God's disapproval. I do so because I am a part of a society that has collectively agreed, via law, that these are not productive behaviors. I have an interest in cooperating with others to make all of our lives (the ones here) better. If there is no afterlife, then I would especially not want to spend what is possibly my ONLY life in jail. But even if there were no laws at all, I still wouldn't do those things because I wouldn't want them done to me. You can still believe in the Golden Rule as an Atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to here suggest a small enrichment to English. I propose the word "casperism" as a noun denoting the belief in the existence of unquantifiable or undemonstrable forces, entities, principles or things. Other forms would be: "casperite" as the person who holds such beliefs, and "casperitic" as the adjective. This would serve a useful purpose as "religious" excludes a whole range of beliefs... in spirits, in Elvis, etc. and "spiritual" can refer to a merely subjectively pleasant feeling not necessarily dependent on belief of any sort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet the experiment begin.
Bitflung said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Christianity: I hate it more than most others due to the historical abuses enacted by Christians. Were I to choose a faith today perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster would compel me, or even Jedi, but Christ? No I think not. Too much blood on the hands of his supposed worshipers."
Surely on that logic all must FLEE atheism as THE doctrine that has murdered more than any other in its cause? Or have we forgotten Stalin and other atrocities done in the name of "dialectical materialism"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
In other words, are you really proposing that one adopts a worldview based on a statistical count of real (or imagined) faults of the followers? What other things influenced so called "Christian atrocities"? For I suggest that certain historical events had more to do with the rise and fall of empires and the greed of emperors than the actual teachings of Christ.
Besides which, it is irrelevant to establishing the actual truth or otherwise of Christ being the "God-man". Even Christians in the New Testament often copped a scolding for their behaviour! The answers, I suggest, lie in another, less prejudiced mode of thought.
Ether asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Oh btw how have atheist killed more people then religion? Are you gona trot out hitler and Saltin? Please...."
I think you meant Stalin, and yes PLEASE admit that their programs are perfectly permissible without any objective moral arbiter (God) to tell us what is moral. Without God there is no right and wrong, no good or bad, there is only survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw. In an atheistic worldview, even our own our personal preferences for some sort of "morality" or "human-rights" come out of our own fear of "bad things happening to us". If we can convince the "alpha males" that there is this thing called "morality" then maybe we'll survive a few more years.
So it is entirely consistent with dialectical materialism of Stalin or Lenin, or even just your everyday materialism of a street punk or thug, to do whatever the heck they want to anyone... if they can get away with it. Nature red in tooth and claw, and all that. And anyone that wants to back away from this reality isn't really an atheist, and wants to cling to a post-Christian part of their culture and try and justify "some sort of morality".
So Ether, IS there a reason Stalin's atheism isn't compatible with just exterminating any people group that he might suspect of harbouring rebels? You're the one asserting that there is something wrong with asserting Stalin's atheism is compatible with mass-murder: PLEASE!
"How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Um, the cause is ridding the world of "religion" because as we all know that "religion is poison". The "Cause" is ushering in the new communist world order, the "heaven" that was going to be created here on earth, right here right now, by worldwide communism.
"Stalin's doctrine of diamat
Following the 1917 October Revolution, Soviet philosophy became divided between "dialecticians" (Deborin) and "mechanists" (Bukharin). In 1931, Stalin decided the debate with a decree which identified dialectical materialism as pertaining solely to Marxism-Leninism. He then codified it in Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938) by enumerating the "laws of dialectics". The laws are the grounds of particular disciplines and in particular of the science of history, and guarantee their conformity to the "proletarian conception of the world."
And Lenin based his views on ""materialist inversion" of Hegelian dialectics, the historicity of ethical principles ordered to class struggle and the convergence of "laws of evolution" in physics (Helmholtz), biology (Darwin) and in political economics (Marx). Lenin hence took position between a historicist Marxism (Labriola) and a determinist Marxism, close to "social Darwinism" (Kautsky). "
Social Darwinism, there you have it. "Nature red in tooth and claw" unleashed on our political systems, with the ultimate goal being our "good" in the "communist heaven" but with any means justifiable to get there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
Sounds like a "cause to kill for" to me.
No. there are no invisible evil, they are in our face. They steal peoples minds claim it as their own, they reuse to publish better work fear of being knocked of their pedestal when they claim they are for the world, take the differential, the Khumalo differential is correct, dead on, but they fear. Why, people like Larry Summers say blacks should be poisond with pollutants because Africans are garbage, there he has a great Job with Obama, and those who challenged him on his remarks where fired like the Brazilian environmental minister, what would he say if toxic waste should be dumped on Israel, he would say Anti Semetic, and rush to discredit everything about you. Philosophers like Bertrand Russel notoriously hated other people, Go toHarvad, 2 + 2 is still 4, but you have a better chance in life, because it is not the knowledge you acquire but the contacts, As the founder of modern economics Marshall said, to get knowledge read a book, institutions are good for acquiring fitness in society, not knowledge and he certainly was a greater economist than any from Chicago or Harvard. Its in our face, crushing and destroying and denying, but claiming we are just imagining things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer's article presupposes that he knows what's real and what isn't. He assumes there is no God, then gives a psychological explanation as to why people would make the error of theism. This is not evidence against theism. It assumes theism is false, then proceeds from there. Still, if one agrees with Shermer's initial assumption that theism is false, the article does provide an interesting theory as to why theism is so widely adopted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer's article presumes to know what's real and make-believe. He starts with the assumption that theism is false, then gives a psychological explanation as to why it is so widely adopted. The article includes no discussion at all of whether or not theism is true. It is essentially an inference to the best explanation. It takes widespread theism as the phenomenon to be explained, then it provides a psychological explanation for the theism. At no point does it discuss whether that theism is true. Similar psychological explanations could be found for lots of true beliefs. In fact, the need to find patterns seems to uncover an awful lot of patterns that really exist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCJames, you're spot on. It's a case of "Bulverism".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(quote from wikipedia below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay of the same name, later included in the anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:
* You claim that A is true.
* Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.
* Therefore, A is false.
Sorry I posted the same idea twice. I didn't see it appear the first time. Thanks for the info, Eclipse. I'm glad to know it's a recognized fallacy. Eat it, Shermer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you believe in God simply to "hedge your bets", that is, because it's safer for you if God should turn out to exist? I find it impossible to believe simply because it might be shrewder to do so, and would the God you believe in actually want you as a follower if this is your motive? Nor can I imagine believing in God because it makes my life feel more comforting--I want to see and experience the universe as it truly is, otherwise, what's the point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there never has been, and likely never will be, any evidence that spooks, ghosts, goblins, gods, or other things that go bump in the night exist, there has to be an explanation as to why certain people insist that there is. This is one of those explanations. And, to continue to believe in contrived causes, when all evidence clearly indicates that they are contrived, is nothing but self-delusion, as stated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there never has been, and likely never will be, any evidence that spooks, ghosts, goblins, gods, or other things that go bump in the night exist, there has to be an explanation as to why certain people insist that they do. This is one of those explanations. And, to continue to believe in contrived causes, when all evidence clearly indicates that they are contrived, is nothing but self-delusion, as stated. Too bad, how sad...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow many wars have been fought over religious ideas? I would say much blood has been spilled over ridiculous concepts in the past centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many wars have been fought over scientific ideas? None
You know why? Because if you prove something with evidence it cannot be contested unless it is shown to be faulty or new more reliable evidence arises.
It may make you feel good when you think somebodys watching up there, but what happens when you incorporate that belief in your daily life, and somebody contests that belief (especially under political situations)? Neither side can truly claim to be right but they are also not willing to come to compromise since what they believe it the ultimate truth resulting in big conflicts over nothing.
Lets take a modern example: stem cell research, thanx to the Bush administration, has been delayed by almost a decade for no physical proven or tested reason. A potentially lifesaving research that will radically impact healthcare, and we do not pursue it because some ppl believe the soul is in those five or so cells? Imagine how many lives could have been saved already but havent because of ignorance.
how many wars have been fought over religious ideas? I would say much blood has been spilled over ridiculous concepts in the past centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many wars have been fought over scientific ideas? None
You know why? Because if you prove something with evidence it cannot be contested unless it is shown to be faulty or new more reliable evidence arises.
It may make you feel good when you think somebody’s watching up there, but what happens when you incorporate that belief in your daily life, and somebody contests that belief (especially under political situations)? Neither side can truly claim to be right but they are also not willing to come to compromise since what they believe it the “ultimate truth” resulting in big conflicts over nothing.
Let’s take a modern example: stem cell research, thanx to the Bush administration, has been delayed by almost a decade for no physical proven or tested reason. A potentially lifesaving research that will radically impact healthcare, and we do not pursue it because some ppl believe the soul is in those five or so cells? Imagine how many lives could have been saved already but haven’t because of ignorance.
This explanation is rather like saying that sleeping pills work because they have a "dormative power". The terms "patternicity" and "agenticity" are descriptions of patterns of human behavior, not explanations for why we behave in these ways. The closest the article comes to giving an actual explanation is the brief discussion about the survival benefits of false positives as opposed to false negatives. But it is difficult to see how this general point explain the tendency to see agency in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a section of the brain wired to recognize facial patterns. It is essential for babies to recognize there mother's faces as soon as possible after birth. Other parts of the brain recognize more generic patterns. Nevertheless, all parts of the brain work on a simple binomial priciple, either a neuron fires or it does not. The most intricate neural networks can be reduced to a system of binomial responses to excitatory or inhibitory stimuli from neuro-chemical transmitters. Ultimately, even our higher thought processes can be reduced to the same binomial reductionism. A premise is either true or false (a "don't know" is still a "false"). This fundamental physiological basis of thought sets limits on reasoning and logic. Mathematicians have proven there exist problems that are unproveable. Therefore, science is incapable of fully explaining the "whys" and "wherefors" of all reality. It may calculate very good approximations for many, or even most, phenomenon but it can never hope to fully explain all the unknown. So there are many, myself included, who relish the enlightenment that comes from spiritual meditation. It is not logical; it is not scientific, but it is good and it is true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's amazing how religious (read: Christian) people default to the belief that atheism is a precondition of evil and nothing else. I live my life without any god and I'm one of the most reasonable and tolerant people I know (and most of the people I know are Christians). Just because atheists and agnostics have the right to choose, there is no reason to assume they will choose paths of destruction and anarchy. That is the fear and insecurity of dogmatics speaking and nothing else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one agree that religion is a force of death on this planet; for your consideration, I shall reference ALL of the wars in the Bible (no I don't believe the word of god, but I do believe it is loosely based on the history of the jewish tribes, similar to the Iliad), the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials (not to mention all of the hunting that went on in Europe during the dark ages)...
I can go even further, since the Bible predicts that on the day of judgment whoever in the world has not confessed to a belief in Christ will be slain in the apocalypse, "and the blood of the fallen shall flow up to the horse's bridle". Christians love blood. That frightens me.
Oh and this isn't even mentioning all other forms of subjugation religion has put people through; ignorance and willful denial of modern education, slavery, intolerance and persecution of so-called deviants, stripping the world bare of resources (check it out, Protestantism opened the floodgates for the destruction of the environment and never looked back)...
Every time I look at religion I'm glad I'm not a part of it. Who needs that kind of guilt on their shoulders?
@OneEye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In order to sustain his concocted notion of evolutionary "patternicity", Mr. Schermer will have to show that perception of nonexistent patterns is generally more survivalistic than imperception of existent patterns. "
- conceited? really? how so? is it more or less conceited than the religious wonderboys who claim that all atheists are not only wrong but morally repugnant? choose your words wisely and kindly. between the lines of your message lies a specific hate common amongst the lesser educated but grandiose speakers of the religious kind.
"Mr. Schermer offers one cheesy illustration (involving snakes in the grass, or some such), but while this may be satisfactory for Mr. Schermer and his disciples, it would hardly sway a skeptic."
- perhaps, as a skeptic, you would like to hear an example of the converse of mr Schermer's example? here you go: [ http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/city_mockingbirds_can_tell_the_difference_between_individual.php ]. in that example, false positives are filtered out such filtering is argued to be beneficial to the survival of the species. This, my OneEyed friend, is the beauty of science: we are not afraid to cast doubt on our own beliefs. It is for this very reason that, when we form a belief, we have more reason to believe it than we would if some extremely biased man in a cape simply decreed it so.
"For instance, Mr. Schermer and his ilk routinely make the claim that religion and religionists are responsible for more death and destruction than any other group. (This claim is bogus. Atheists have been much more virulently destructive. But still...)"
- wow. please, make any reference to ANYONE in the world who might possibly agree with this. for thousands of years there is no real history of atheism, but during that period of time millions died. i won't argue in this paragraph that those deaths were caused by religious motives, but that you will have a very hard time finding ANY caused by atheists at all (and surely NONE in the 'name' of atheism, which is somewhat more precisely the point
"Mr. Schermer refutes his own case: According to him, 'patternicity' and 'agenticity' would[..] be the sources of [..] the least survivalist behaviour of humanity - religion. [...] the Mr. Schermers of the world [should] find new and subtler ways to couch their anti-religious bigotry in pseudo-scientific terminology. C'est la vie. When will the next atheist pogrom be"
- you must be very popular amongst those who seek convenient pseudo-thruths.
Wow, what an informative article! I see patterns too. i see that there are animals in this world for which Evolution has no answer. I see a religion (Evolution) which sees a non existent pattern of life from non-life. It is sad that all this world has to offer is the here and now. If God or Aliens don't exist, then this short walk on the Earth is it! Depressing, dont you think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course association does not make causation. There could be all kinds of patterns in the universe because it was put together by some kind of deity, which is what the intelligent design folks would say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions." what the hell is he talking about here???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Defeats Evil”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is everyman’s believe, and instinctive approach into this life, knowingly that there is a creator, from the beginning of one’s life and to the end of such.
Be it an existing Planet or Universe. Scientific or Religious, and if you have, a developed mind of the age of realization, and the environment has not changed you, from your Natural endorsements of your genes, which brought you into this existence, (from a sublime of out of time and space, (invisible and undefined scientifically, considered here on this Planet as a “bloodline” or as a “protégée”))
God himself will not impose on his subjects, verbally any conditions, or laws, contrary to his true nature, embedded on the remarkable gene, (the discussion of this subject further, could spread over thousand pages of no avail)
Therefore, Good will defeat evil, if you allow “Good” to come and stay into you, and into your company, or into your Country.
Now then, god put us here on this Planet, only with “Goodness” in our genes, without languages, sings, objects, curse’s, yet the most significant and profound accomplishments’ given’s by him, into us all, are in silence.
The Creator has invoiced into his creation, the most important characteristics, but because of the extremes of the genes, which have spread over all the Planets of the Universe, environment was bound to change some.
Then again, because of the love of God, some humans will over act extremely invoicing God’s word, and positively imposing on others the rules and the law of God, (all those expressions are because of their strong believe in goodness, which was coded in their genes, but do God the creator accepts their expression?)
“Silence is Golden”
I do not believe for a moment, that one should impose on others, their believes and arguments (for ones justifiable application for himself, may not be suited for other)
In addition, the best lesson learned properly, is by your own unique diverse association of your inner consciousness.
When should one stop from characterising or discussing the subject of right or wrong, when one precepts facts with-in his Nature and some others do not.
“God knows the mind of the wise, and the language we speak is not a necessary endowment”
Learn passion and redemption, and look at “Time” not as something of it’s self, but as part of you, traveling in-to infinity of the Universe, then nothing will appear fictions’.
Do not run away, for you are only running away from yourself, “You can run but you cannot hide”
The Good and the Bad, is that you are taking all your morbid ways with you, and still have on your back, the Cloth of your false imaginations.
My belief in what the Bible actually teaches as opposed to the many misrepresentations to be had out there there gives me what i feel is a rather solid framework of understanding about what God's 'masterplan' is and it is logical. It satisfies my desire for logic and i don't turn my mind off when thinking, praying or discussing spiritual topics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, biological evolution is accepted by many because they can't wrap their heads around the existance of God Almighty, a spirit that came from no one else. Others embrace evolution out of a desire to avoid culpability for their own chosen form of wickedness. If there is no God, then there is no need for conscience they think. But evolution itself isn't logical. There is no way all the countless chemical reactions as well as the presence of DNA could all, by chance, come together on their own. To think so, is to be of the same mentality that thought maggots magically appeared in meat.
I can buy into the notion that God's own creativity 'evolved' as he and his Son (Prov. 8) both took great enjoyment in the act of creation over millions of years. That explains why so many traits are borrowed across specie lines. Early cavemen could then be seen as early 'prototypes' leading to the creation of Man. What surprises me is that i've never seen this idea broached in any writings, but i'm sure it's out there. It shows up typical 'creationists' as being out of touch with reality. THAT is what is sad! They have given creation a bad name. No where in Genesis does it impart the notion that God's creative acts were limited to a 24 hour 'Earth day'. Complete untruth!
I feel very sorry I DO NOT believe in supernatural entities because most people around me do, and I feel limited, small and powerless facing all the dangers of the real world with just myself to be concerned about the meaning of my life...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the author's discussion of humans possessing a natural tendency to seek pattern and meaning whether meaning is actually present or not. However, the author did not account for or mention the fact that there could possibly be meaning and design that we haven't uncovered yet. In looking at the complexity of life, unlocking the enormity of the human genome, in striving the find the smallest particle in existence, could we be overlooking a design because of a preconceived idea that design is impossible? Try to explain the human body without mentioning any possibility of a designer and you will find that it takes a much greater faith than believing that someone created it. Great sculptures and architecture do not randomly form from the building blocks--they are designed and carefully arranged to become what they are. Why then is it not unbelievable that the complexity of life just arose due to a random series of events?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is the question of being a person capable of acting with a conscience and a consciousness (of others, their needs and the resources of the universe) in the face of the fact of a huge universe that is little effected by wishes and desires. To resolve to live one's life with wide open eyes and a skeptical but inquiring mind is the supreme act of humanity and the only source of serenity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree with you. The Bible for a fact states that creation was a 24 hour earth day. Genesis 1:5 states, "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last statement clearly presents a 24 hour time frame. Trying to fit evolution into creation brings about theories of prolonged evenings and mornings. Why should such a limitless God be subjected to have to take millions of years to create this earth. On the seventh day he rested. God isn't a God to leave a job unfinished before its completion--He rested because He was finished. Questioning of the literal interpretation of 'evening and morning' was never an issue before the introduction of Darwin's theory. Conformity has drawn many Christians into imposing interpretation where a literal understanding of the text is all that is required.
If I'm to presume that religious people are making a type I error (believing a pattern is real when it's not), shouldn't I also presume that atheists are making a type II error (not believing a pattern is real when it is)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also see a flaw in the logic of the rustling grass. Since when is God like a "dangerous predator?" That more accurately describes the devil; and yet, far more people believe in God than in the devil. Are you more likely to survive if you believe the rustle in the grass is a beneficent being? Or if you believe it's a snake? Which one would be most favored by natural selection?
i have a baloney detection device...and i know michael shermer is full it...if you REALLY listen to him, he claims to superior observational skills...skills that others do not possess...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have a functional baloney detector...it goes off every time micheal shermer opens his mouth...if you ACTUALLY LISTEN to him...he claims superior observational skills for himself while denying the observational skills of others...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't the mere expression of, "If God does present..." show that there is doubt in the "believer's" mind? The truth is that no one can prove or disprove the existence of a God, and thus it is certain that one cannot prove which one is the "true God" if, indeed, a God exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, believe if you want to believe and it helps you, but don't require others to subscribe to your beliefs to be considered unworthy. People can make good choices and be considerate, fruitful members of society without having or needing to receive a "reward" in the hereafter. In the end, I think that, other motivations aside, most religions would find that to be the most noble result of subscribing and living a certain religious philosophy - that one's motives are pure and that one does not perform good acts with the expectation of a reward.
Your argument seems plausible, but it has one major flaw. Here is the problem. As you all know, there are zillion religions up there. And each and every one of them has one thing in common, to say the least. If you believe and follow their rules, you will be saved. If not, you will be damned. So while you may find yourself confortable in your religious believes, don't be so. You may have chosen the wrong religion (Because we mortals are limited in knowing the truth, then we have no way of making the right choice). Therefore, I'll continue to be the stupid agnostic that I've being so far making choices based on facts and science as supposed to some magic my priest may have spoken of. And as for you, make sure you choose right for the sake of your own soul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisv There is no subject -- and can be none -- concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence...The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a believer....He who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will find it impossible to account for martyrs -- for the burning of the good, the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous. Robert Ingersoll
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be frank with all of you, am a bit puzzled. I thought this site was a science site. I see lots of you still believe in superstition. Good for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is ample evidence that the self-fulfilling prophecy affects the outcome of intentional choices and consequent behaviors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unbearable emptiness of nonexistence"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen James Boswell, best known as Samuel Johnson's biographer, met with the atheist, David Hume, shortly before the latter's death, he recorded the meeting in his journal:
An Account of my last interview with David Hume, Esq.
Partly recorded in my Journal, partly enlarged from my memory,
3 March 1777
"I asked him if the thought of annihilation never gave him any uneasiness. He said not the least; no more than the thought that he had not been, as Lucretius observes."
(Full account: http://www.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/17762.html)
Like Hume, I can see no reason to worry about non-existence. I was in that state for 13.5 to 14 billion years, and I don't remember having experienced even the slightest discomfort, let alone "unbearable emptiness." Why should I expect any less (or more?) when I cease to exist? Note that even a young earth creationist would have to contend with the problem of having spent 4004+1900 years at least non-existing (Now, doesn't that sound incoherent?!) without having had any experience of "unbearable emptiness" or anything else.
As for Pascal's Wager, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/. Here, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you will find a complete analysis; then you can make up your mind as to whether it is in any way compelling.
My issues with religion stem from the fact that it seems to encourage people not to think, at least about religion.
"Eat it, Shermer."!! My, my. Such nice manners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut then, isn't that what you believe the all-loving God is going to say to Shermer and me in the end? So I guess you have divine blessing for speaking as you do.
I realize my last questrion may sound snotty, but isn't the answer, "Yes."? If not, why not?
I'm one of those people who has been on a search for truth for five and a half decades. Glad to say, I've made a bit of progress, mostly by sharpening my techniques of avoiding those Type I and Type II errors.
Buddhists don't have a god. The gods referred to in Buddhist literature all came to the Buddha, most definitely an ordinary human being, for advise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd of course, one might want to read "The Ethics of Belief" by William Clifford. You can find the entire text plus William James' attempted refutation, "The Will to Believe" and an analytical essay by A.J. Burger at http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust an off-hand comment on me: after those five and a half decades I've been searching, the best name I have found for myself is "igtheist" or one who is completely ignorant of what the word, "God", could possibly mean. When I ask people what they mean, the answers I get are either of the "You know what I mean." variety to things so compounded with words like immortal, invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. which they are powerless to explain. Ask if God can create a rock so big he can't move it, and they reply that one is just playing with words. That's not the case; it shows that omnipotence is a self-contradictory concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you just explained there is what people refer to Pascals wager (check it out - not a reasonable answer for it has been refuted with logic many times). Is it possible to see that neither faith nor hope have anything to do with what you are? I will take a quote from a great mind named Krishnamurti who said that, "We have had faith in leaders, in Guru's, in politics and one can see this throughout the histories. Meanwhile, hope has nourished this faith, because we have wanted something more, a state of bliss. However, Hope and faith have nothing to do with what you actually are. It doesn't matter what you think you are, but what matters is what you actually are and 'what is'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, take the time to evaluate what "thought" is. Not just the action, but the movement. See that objects of thought are all around us, and one of these is religion. Religion and everything (the rituals, the texts, the morals) are all the result of human thought.
Go ahead and try it, try and release yourself from your faith...can you do it? Evaluate things objectively?
What you just explained there is what people refer to Pascals wager (check it out - not a reasonable answer for it has been refuted with logic many times). Is it possible to see that neither faith nor hope have anything to do with what you are? I will take a quote from a great mind named Krishnamurti who said that, "We have had faith in leaders, in Guru's, in politics and one can see this throughout the histories. Meanwhile, hope has nourished this faith, because we have wanted something more, a state of bliss. However, Hope and faith have nothing to do with what you actually are. It doesn't matter what you think you are, but what matters is what you actually are and 'what is'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, take the time to evaluate what "thought" is. Not just the action, but the movement. See that objects of thought are all around us, and one of these is religion. Religion and everything (the rituals, the texts, the morals) are all the result of human thought.
Go ahead and try it, try and release yourself from your faith...can you do it? Evaluate things objectively?
I just finished reading all 96 comments and my eyes are tearing from laughing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys are incredibly amusing.
"unbearable emptiness of nonexistence"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no 'unbearable' being non-existent.
It pretty much stands that zealots and schizos are the originators and perpetrators of religion. In the US, this is obvious by watching any religious broadcast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I'm neither of those two, and since religion is entirely regional (due to the creators being in a time/location in the past), and since there's not a shred of evidence for metaphysical reality, I'm perfectly content to have no belief in gods, demons or any sort of afterlife.
I rather enjoy being a carbon/oxygen combustion machine. To diss it is to diss your very existence.
Oh please, such an overly simplistic explanation of spirituality is patently absurd and not worthy of the scientific analysis. The desire to believe in a greater power and the comfort that derives from it cannot be measured objectively. Not only is the existence of God impossible to prove or disprove but our desire to put our faith in something greater than ourselves is not to be measured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn spite of the caricature of religion here, there is another side to the issue. For those of you who are legitimately interested, there are several books available that provide a reasoned defense of Christianity. A couple of good ones are The Reason For God by Timothy Keller, and The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel. Should you read those and still choose not to believe that Christ was who he said he was, you will at least be aware of all the evidence/arguments for Christianity. In addition, I think you will find "dis-believing" and discounting everything presented will require as much if not more faith in things not amenable to scientific proof as those accepted by adherents of the faith.
No matter who you are or what answer you ulimately conclude, the most important question one has to consider in this life is "Who was Jesus Christ?". As C.S. Lewis posited in his trilemma which can be found in the book Mere Christianity, the options are: 1. Lord 2. liar 3. lunatic. To say he was "just" a great teacher is an intellectual copout. Should you attempt to answer this question through intellectual pursuit, I must warn you that you may very well determine the answer is "Lord" and if you do, it will change everything.
1.
It's an old argument. Skeptics like Schermer say there's no reason to believe in spirit things, since everything can be explained by non-spirit mechanisms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchermers concepts of "patternicity" and "agenticity" describe human tendencies to see intelligent agents at work in natural patterns. He cites a psychology experiment: Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions. The experiment, though, is an example of agenticity. It was designed by agentsthe experimentersso that the patterns on the screen acted in certain ways.
Since natural phenomena comprise all the evidence there is about them, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of spirit agents. Schermer's argument boils down to one skeptics have long used: Theres no reason to add a layer of explanation of spiritual influence on top of the materialistic, mechanistic explanations of science.
Schermer's and the skeptics miss the point. It's not whether science and material explanations suffice. Within their realm, they do. But suppose some alien scientists observed the goings on on earth, and one of them investigated the phenomenon of the Internet. That scientist would find that the workings of the Internet conformed entirely to the natural laws of physics, network theory, and statistics. He might conclude, that there was no need to infer agency in the working of the communication web. But we know he would be wrong: The existence of the network, as well as the content of its messages, are the results of the actions of agents.
The relevant question is not whether natural laws explain phenomena, but whether there is rational justification for believing in the existence and influence of entities other than the material and mechanistic ones. I point to one here: Quantum mechanical wave functions (state vectors).
The Copenhagen interpretation of QM, due to Niels Bohr, says things that exist may be described as either particles or waves. Both descriptions are valid and real.
The particle description refers to entities of matter-energy (i.e., material things). But the wave description refers to entities that are mathematical and probabilistic (not material things). Particles can be observed directly to determine mass, momentum, etc., but wave functions (state vectors) cannot be observed directly; their existence is inferred. A fundamental concept of QM is that observing a wave function instantly collapses it from a mathematical, non-material form into a particulate, material one.
Moreover, the non-material form of existence, the wave function or state vector, includes a property somewhat like agenticity: It specifies the probabilities that influence the appearance and arrangement of the particle(s) into which it collapses.
There is no doubt in my mind that humans often err in discerning patterns that are not really there. Much racism in the world appears to be caused by this "survival skill".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is possible much racism in the world is the result imagined patterns
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPredjudice may be a result of this need to see patterns
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inability of science to find evidence of the existence of "God" does not prove anything. Possibly "God" is unquantifiable, perhaps above, outside or different than the material world. Many experiences of humans are unquantifiable, such as the subjective feeling of love, which almost everyone would agree does exist and has very real consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does everyone assume that if there is a "god" then that "god" must be active in the world and have agendas and designs. It is possible that the material universe and human existence is but a byproduct of "god's" existence. Much like my persperation is a byproduct of my body which i certainly do not willfully bring into existence nor do I have any control over it once I have "created it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome interpretations of the Vedas indicate that the dynamics of the universe may be caused by the relationship of creation to it's creator. That God is eternal, unborn, unmoving and yet has an effect on the world just by being.
You have effectively admitted that you "believe" because you're scared of what may come if you did not "believe". I would have to say that your "belief", or "faith" as some may call it, is not true belief or faith at all...it's a security blanket. An awfully thin one, at that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists also believe invisible agents control the world. They call the agents "laws of nature".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, there is nothing strange or wrong about believing this. It's quite rational to try to explain our world in terms of agents and forces.
Scientists also believe invisible agents control the world. They call the agents "laws of nature".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, there is nothing strange or wrong about believing this. It's quite rational to try to explain our world in terms of agents and forces.
Invisible to the naked eye, perhaps. But these forces are indeed measureable, and therefore observeable and thus verifiable, unlike the workings of a god(or gods...or flying spaghetti monsters, hehe.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVoltaire?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOLD GODS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've long seen there are two worlds - subjective and objective, inner and outer. Both contain unknowable mystery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see our unconscious is filled by inner agents trying to get our attention, and our perception of the world mirrors this communication. So mystery inside is reflected in whatever we experience as mystery outside.
There may yet be "hidden agents" in the world that serve a parallel to our inner hidden agents, or it might not matter. For me is like the literalistic interpretations of religion. If your consciousness NEEDS a literal interpretation to believe in hidden forces, then learn from that. I think an open mind is better, but I know its hard to believe in something I can't see or touch, even as it influences me.
Does it matter whether I believe an angel woke me up to instant awareness to avoid disaster, or a very active unconscious pounding me to action? Either explanation works for me.
AA supports a belief in a higher power that can help us rise above our irrational weaknesses, above our "small ego" pride which tries to hide our shameful action. Does it matter "who" the agents are that aid us in our need?
I'm a skeptic, but I accept pragmatism. The sun may not rise every morning, but it looks that way and that's a useful truth.
Since we have not "evolved" a neurological means for detecting baloney, perhaps, "natural selection" can "select" one for implantation. Then again, perhaps reliance on "natural selection" is not such a grand idea: "...[N]atural
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisselection...is the only theory we have; but when judged as a working hypothesis it is disappointing to find so little advance in a hundred years....No amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox theory; but most biologists feel it is better to think in terms of improbable events than not to think at all. [Prof. Sir James Gray. 1954. The Case for Natural Selection. NATURE, 6 February, p. 227]
Yet, that statement was written 55 years ago. Surely, by this time, someone "must have" demonstrated the error inherent in the statement...
My personal acceptance of "invisible powers" is based on one of the teachings of St. Paul: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 6:12. Catholic Bible. (c) 2000. Douay Rheims translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software]
Regarding conspiracy "theories," and the "theorists" behind them, here's a sample from one the "nonexistent" Bilderbergers: "Some even believe that we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States;
characterizing my family and me as internationalists who have conspired with others around the globe to build a more integrated global political and economic structure; one world if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I'm
proud of it. [David Rockefeller. 2002. Memoirs. Random House. p. 405. In: John Vennari, Editor, Catholic Family News. 2008. The Bilderbergers and the Revolt Against Divine Providence. Lecture CD. Buffalo: Oltyn Library Services.]
Obviously St. Paul and myself, deluded bumpkins that we are, have not "evolved" the ability to extract ourselves from all that superstition. Pray for me!
"Even the belief that government can impose top-down measures to rescue the economy is a form of agenticity, with President Barack Obama being touted as “the one” with almost messianic powers who will save us." - Shermer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy should this be acceptable for Scientific American? When I'm reading a science paper, I don't want to have to deal with an author's clearly spelled out political bias (not to mention the fact that the point he made was complete bullshit, even if you might agree with his anti-government intervention stance). This is ridiculous.
The claim that any idea of intervention into the economy is equivalent or akin to believing in invisible agents such as a god is stupid enough on it's own grounds, but especially belongs nowhere near what is supposed to be "scientific" literature.
If there is a god, how do we know he is a good and kind and just god? (as the Christians espouse) I look around and see suffering, pain and injustices done to innocent people. There is a lot of ignorance in this world. I rest my case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIS any of this believable?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read 117 comments on a half page phylosiphy post in a Scientific American mag. after reading a 5 page article on other sun /planet systems that had only 2 commentors that were opinionating on their views on american cars.
For what it's worth, I have spent over 50 years in trying to understanding how everything works. Photons, electrons,protons,EMF, mass, inertia and gravity, how it all fits together. Everything from dark energy/matter on to the Universe it's self. A year ago it all came together and I saw the face of GOD as it were. Sorry no omnipitant dude sitting in a cloud or on a mountain. Just the collective soul of the Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Ishmael,Jr Nice lines man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we people are very clever. We perform well when we are not blamed. We consider GOD as a blame taker rather than a helper many of the times. When we say "if GOD permit, I will win this match" we mean " I will try my best but if i fail, its just that GOD didn't want it". We say " By the grace of GOD we have got a baby boy" we mean " If nothing comes out, i am not to be blamed, it was just GOD who didn't consider it good to happen". Things are achieved if they are achievable, its just sometimes you need an extra faith in you, which is called GOD. You cannot lift a building by your hand, how ardent believer you may be. Nor you can channel a river to your home. .. Cheers
Fine, but what if you are following the wrong religion? (and there are many). Probabilities are against you and I'll see you in the hell, then sorry me if I?m laughing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"with President Barack Obama being touted as the one with almost messianic powers who will save us."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Who believes this? I've heard this from the right often enough, but I haven't met many on the left that feel this way. I think the right is confusing the outcome of the election with the man. It's interesting that a statement like this occurs in an article that's trying to explain this flawed mentality.
There's been a belief for a long time that the individual isn't heard by our government. That their vote or voice doesn't count in national politics. Obama's election represents a reinforcement of the belief that our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people". It was a break from the status quo: a minority elected to our highest office, who ran a campaign primarily financed not by special interest groups but individual contributions and overwhelmingly won not only the popular election but swept the electoral college.
Obama is simply a figurehead for the change that's sweeping the nation: we're taking it back. Is he going to cure our ills? Absolutely not, and that's the point. He's not going to do it, and the Democratic Congress isn't going to do it: WE are.
I will not deal with Shermer as a genuine anything. He makes a living from being a proponent of these NON-BELIEFS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis perception of the primary agent of parsing reality, pattern recognition, as being just a form of self-delusion for all of the controversial items stated, is his personal false assemblage.
As we expand out ability to see the universe and ourselves, the greater the data base which needs to be assembled into coherency. There will be false steps but even then they will be "chunked " into parcels of logic or facts which make them readily disposed of by some or studied by others.
There is a pragmatic reason for this assembly.
Since I have seen and participated in some rather bizarre incidents, I am open mind about much of what he so readily dismisses. He likes his world view to be simple and is willing to relegate the facts supporting alternate realities to a bin. Fine, he wants to be an advocate of Occam's Razor in Extremis. Nothing can possibly be true if it is overly complicated or conspiratorial in nature. This is the broad-ax approach of scalpel wielding.
It's believable that, as an instance, the Bilderbergers meet and have ice cream socials. They just like hanging out with people of similar wealth,power and prestige. They like the limo rides to and fro the airports via limousine. They would never attempt to influence world events to their liking after their little convention. It's strictly for their edification so many past and future world leaders appear before them.
NASA doesn't fudge photos and facts, 9/11 commission neither, yada, yada. The news media does not grind their own corporate knives to suit their owners.
Galileo must have been wrong......
Shermer believes that fringe groups are merely fantasists. Actually they are the cutting edge of human growth.
Now for dogmatists, I have little concern. Angels and pins do not concern me. If you can show me how this could propel a space craft, let me know. Otherwise, biblical rants do not move me.
Shermer likes to believe we are fantasists. I like believing he's a small minded prick of a man. These beliefs can exist and be supported by the facts held true to the individual. The beauty of the universe is that it can hold disparate beliefs and by their endless grinding develop honed truths.
This so-called survival of which you speak is not true survival since it is after bodily death. it is therefore not admissible in this argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover your position is nothing more than Pascal's Wager which is among the simplest and easiest religionist positions to refute.
Your binary conclusion is your first error:
a.) No "god"
b.) "god" (your own assumed conception of one)
But what about c.)?
What if this "god" thing you speak of is real but not the "god" YOU happen to believe in? What if it is a Muslim / Hindu / Norse "god." What if it is a super-intelligent alien life form?
The fact of the matter is that you are agnostic about this. You do not know; you merely believe.
To paraphrase a famous agnostic: All of us are agnostic about all other gods except our own. Atheists just go one god further.
What a cowardly belief to wager gods existence and your own eternal salvation based upon mathematical reasoning... If I was god I would respect the intelligent man who searched for reasons to believe in me rather than finding faith in a poorly translated and misinterpreted book and foolishly claiming that it doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I believe I will be saved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo some thinking for your self for once.... Does it really make sense to you that the ONLY righteous man in Sodom OR Gomora offered up his daughters for the towns people to rape in gods name?
Does it sound righteous and good that Abram prostituted Sara, his own wife, to Pharoh so that him and his family could leave Egypt in riches?
Do the preposterous legends of rivers turning to blood, talking snakes; virgins giving birth; sea's splitting; the world flooding, Which by the way is a favorite of mine as I cannot possibly fathom how Noah and his family took care of over 10,000,000 species of insects, mamals, reptiles, etc. and then managed to find food for them all and feed them when they got off the ship.
It sounds like a grand mythology to me buddy.
To all the people bringing up Pascal's Wager...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm assuming you believe in the invisible mind-mantis as well, because you know he ALSO does terrible things to you if you don't believe in him, and since you're able to choose what you believe based on what is in your best metaphysical interest, rather than simply what you deduce to be true, it's the exact same situation. So believe in both.
So we can take it you believe in the invisible mind-mantis. Oh, and the great squid of disharmony. Oh the things they do to you after you die if you didn't believe in them...
True, they probably don't exist, but like you said ... we SHOULD believe in them, its in our own best interest. If we're wrong, what's the harm?
By the way ... I hate to bring this up, but the invisible mind-mantis needs people in a few countries to stone people to death. And in a few others people need to be persecuted by the mind-mantis' will.
Oh, and that scientific study that could lead us to curing brain cancer. Well ... that would cause us to doubt the existence of the mind-mantis. And since we all agree that its in our best interest to believe in him, we should probably shut that down.
Oh what the mind mantis will do to us if we stop believing in him ...
*shudder*
And you KNOW its the WORST possible thing. Because the version of the mind-mantis that will do the worst possible thing to you ... yep, by the same logic, we should believe in HIM too.
Largo "Now for dogmatists, I have little concern. Angels and pins do not concern me. If you can show me how this could propel a space craft, let me know. Otherwise, biblical rants do not move me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you believe in the existance of GOD or not is not important.
If you wish to propel a real spacecraft we should converse.
pgtruspace@hughes.net
We need a new word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"casperism" = the belief in unquantifiable or undemonstrable forces, entities, things or principles.
"casperite" = one who believes in such.
The sooner we can abandon casperism and relegate it to the pages of history, the sooner we can build a truly global civilizaiton founded on mutual respect, compassion and reason. Today, more than ever before, this seems like a genuine possibility.
We need a new word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Casperism" = the belief in unquantifiable or undemonstrable forces, entities, things or principles.
"Casperite" = one who belives in such
The sooner we can abandon casperism and relegate it to the pages of history, the sooner we can build a truly global civilization based on mutual respect, compassion and reason. We may be closer to that happening than any time in the past. These are exciting times.
If we are natural born supernaturalists than
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Dawkins and the like are bound to fail to convert us all to atheists. Thus it is better to try to reform religion than eliminate it.
I believe in an invisible essence called the "gravitational field" which is carried by invisible agents called "gravitons". Of course, no one has ever seen a graviton but I can infer their existence by observing patterns in the world...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Osler5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishm... how can NONEXISTENCE be unbearable?
it's always amusing to witness how a little fuzzy thinking can lead to weird conclusions.
On skeptics and spiritualists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a skeptic I embrace the notion of avoiding type I errors (false positives). With this approach in mind, I try to make rational choices without jumping to conclusions. But at what cost? We skeptics can be more prone to type II errors (false negatives). While busy and correctly debunking all manner of superstition, we must avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The baby in this case could be vital human qualities such as spontaneity, imagination, emotion, and love. By comparison, spiritualists hold themselves open to, and often hope for, another realm or agency operating beyond matter, space, and time. While this view is perhaps mistaken, spiritualists seem more able to embrace the subtle dimensions that skeptics often miss. So our search together must be not only for truth, but also for beauty and goodness.
When a hungry hunter sees a pattern, hed better be right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer writes (in Agenticity , his Skeptic column in the June 2009 issue of Scientific American) that The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. But I think he is entirely wrong. As a predatory species, it is vital that when we see a pattern, we get it right. To stoke the furnace of our massive calorie-hungry brains, we humans had to hunt super-efficiently. We simply could not afford to be burning energy by wild-goose-chasing after every pattern of disturbed gravel and rubbed bark that might have indicated elk were nearby. So a false positive could be a real killer, despite what Shermer writes. Likewise, of course, we couldnt afford too many false negatives, for instance, by missing a trail leading to a berry patch or a nest full of eggs, if we too quickly dismissed real clues. We had to learn what mattered and what didnt.
Not every pattern we think we see is real, of course, or has any relation to the real world. We 21st century humans have the leisure and resources to indulge our pattern-recognizing propensity with conspiracy fantasies, string theory, literature, art, and music. Michael Shermer did so when he thought he understood why humans believe in spirits and demons. But Ice-Age hunters couldnt afford the luxury of empty theorizing about where their next meal was coming from. The patterns they saw had to count. So they did what we all do -- when clues begin to emerge, we look for confirmatory evidence. When we see elk hoofprints, we look around for droppings and scuffed rocks. Doveryai, no proveryai , goes the Russian proverb -- Trust, but verify .
All animals can find patterns. Pavlovs dogs did, thinking that food was coming when they heard a bell ring. All predatory species have to be especially good at it. But Homo sapiens carries this capacity to a degree far transcending what any other species can do. And yet, oddly, there seems to have been little selection pressure to drive the development of this ability. Another mystery is why Paleolithic people at the edge of survival would have devoted precious energy to shamanism, folk tales, and body ornaments. Or why agricultural people would have prayed for rain, built temples to the thunder god, and sacrificed their offspring, instead of just digging irrigation ditches. But that is a topic for another day. Shermer concludes, We are natural-born supernaturalists , and I agree with him on that point.
When a hungry hunter sees a pattern, he’d better be right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer writes (in “Agenticity”, his Skeptic column in the June 2009 issue of Scientific American) that “The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns.” But I think he is entirely wrong. As a predatory species, it is vital that when we see a pattern, we get it right. To stoke the furnace of our massive calorie-hungry brains, we humans had to hunt super-efficiently. We simply could not afford to be burning energy by wild-goose-chasing after every pattern of disturbed gravel and rubbed bark that might have indicated elk were nearby. So a false positive could be a real killer, despite what Shermer writes. Likewise, of course, we couldn’t afford too many false negatives, for instance, by missing a trail leading to a berry patch or a nest full of eggs, if we too quickly dismissed real clues. We had to learn what mattered and what didn’t.
Not every pattern we think we see is real, of course, or has any relation to the real world. We 21st –century humans have the leisure and resources to indulge our pattern-recognizing propensity with conspiracy fantasies, string theory, literature, art, and music. Michael Shermer did so when he thought he understood why humans believe in spirits and demons. But Ice-Age hunters couldn’t afford the luxury of empty theorizing about where their next meal was coming from. The patterns they saw had to count. So they did what we all do -- when clues begin to emerge, we look for confirmatory evidence. When we see elk hoofprints, we look around for droppings and scuffed rocks. “Doveryai, no proveryai”, goes the Russian proverb -- “Trust, but verify”.
All animals can find patterns. Pavlov’s dogs did, thinking that food was coming when they heard a bell ring. All predatory species have to be especially good at it. But Homo sapiens carries this capacity to a degree far transcending what any other species can do. And yet, oddly, there seems to have been little selection pressure to drive the development of this ability. Another mystery is why Paleolithic people at the edge of survival would have devoted precious energy to shamanism, folk tales, and body ornaments. Or why agricultural people would have prayed for rain, built temples to the thunder god, and sacrificed their offspring, instead of just digging irrigation ditches. But that is a topic for another day. Shermer concludes, “We are natural-born supernaturalists”, and I agree with him on that point.
I have been a non-believer for almost all of my 60 years. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, demons or angels. I have learned that every person, and all living things create their own individual and subjective universe using their perception and interpretation. If a large adult and a small child stood in a room, the large adult would perceive a much smaller space while the small child would perceive a much larger area even though the dimensions of the room are the same for both observers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reality is that nothing exists unless some living thing is aware of it. It is our senses and our minds interpretation of what we perceive that gives reality its existence and form. This is the structure of the individual and subjective universe we all live in.
Having said that; if someone looks at a flower and perceives it as the creation of a god, to that person, in that universe, god does indeed exist. In my universe that same flower is a creation of my awareness of it.
I imagine that one day soon, science will learn that the difference between one persons predisposition to assign belief to objects and behavior, and another persons to choose not to, is simply the differences within a cluster of brain cells or genes.
Conspiracy theories are not about invisible agents. One can argue about what the Bilderbergers do, but they really exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer got his type I and type II errors reversed. Type I errors involve failing to get a siginificant correlation where one does exist, and type II errors involve getting specious statistical significance where there really is no relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, some conspiracies are very real and don't fall into the same category as demons and angels. Just look at the current fluctuations in the price of gasoline at the pump for confirmation. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in 1960 is real and the Power Elite that C. Wright Mills wrote about in the 1950s is real.
"When you made visible what is not true, what is true became invisible to you.T-12.VIII.3:1)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When you made visible what is not true, what is true became invisible to you (T-12.VIII.3:1)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to this column on Agenticity , humans are good at identifying patterns, but sometimes they wrongly identify patterns where none exist (false positives), and as a result "highly educated and intelligent people believe that there are "patterns, forces, energies and entities operating in the world" which really aren't there. But then it leaps to the conclusion that this is the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism . . . In other words, all religions are false. It is a constantly repeated refrain in the Skeptics column.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course people identify patterns: such as the periodic table. And of course all religions cannot be correct -- they are too different for that to be possible. But why does the Skeptic so often combine the most indefensible of religious beliefs with all others and then concludes that by proving the weakest is wrong he has somehow shown that all others are also wrong. Are "shamanism, paganism, animism, and intelligent design really one? He might as well combine alchemy, astrology, string theory, and molecular biology into one. The answer cannot be that the former religious theories are based on untestable beliefs, while scientific theories are founded on objective, repeatable experiments. If that were the criteria, there would be no science of evolutionary psychology (which is untestable)but which the Skeptic accepts as the basis for this column.
Why doesn't the column deal with religious teachings a little more credible than animism? For example Christ, the central figure of Western religion, taught: "If any man will do his [God's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17) That challenge should satisfy any skeptic. It is simply a challenge to try it. It is an invitation to all. Someone who refuses to "do His will" is in the same situation as those who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. It means their failure to attempt the experiment is the cause of continued ignorance, not that the experiment itself is flawed.
When millions have had religious experiences that are so strong they have shaped the course of their lives--certainly the best test of what anyone really believes-- it raises the strong possibility that those without religious experience are doing the religious experiment wrong, not that the experiment itself is flawed. Should the same failure to replicate results occur in a scientific context, the likely conclusion would be that the experimenter was doing something wrongperhaps faulty equipment or poor proceduresnot that every other scientist had made a mistake. If the failure to know is due to an unwillingness to do His will, then be honest enough to admit that you havent even tried, but stop claiming that the pattern that so many perceive so clearly must be false just because you dont see it.
I totally understand what you mean and would like it to be true, but I believe a "GOD" would make himself "VERY" self-evident for such and important decision and would not leave it up to the word of "ANY" man. Including any book written by men.... HIS/HER or ITS message would literally be "WRITTEN IN THE SKY"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this day and age, it is unbelievable that a trained and educated mind cannot see the baloney in religion. But, before total despair sets in, I realize that -- relatively speaking -- there are more non-believers now in the world than in the past, when virtually everyone believed in ghosts, spooks, supernatural beings and things that go bump in the night. Maybe, as a so-called sapient being, we have a chance yet at shucking off this "inherited baloney".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I had the words to convey the way that those claiming to be members of NO faith appear to many of us who freely admit faith with no shame. The beleif that a better world would come from some human "goodness" that has been there all along just waiting to be freed from the prison of beleif in something greater than ourselves is such a leap of unmerited faith that it qualifies as a religion in itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany in the Christian camp may not agree, but I enjoy the skeptics' logic and reasoning . I signed no pledge to leave my mind at the door of the church. But I often hear anger toward God and anyone who beleives in God from many of them. Who are these "skeptics" mad at?
The totally unproven beleif that man has some goodness in him that would allow him to build a more perfect world if only he didn't have to "overcome" the "superstitutions" of old myths requires much, much, much more FAITH than I have. I have to see SOME evidence to beleive. I have to have SOME experience that supports my beleif.
Even the history of the church with the horrible things done in its name are proof of the untrustworthy nature of man's "goodness" and his inability to be his own highest ideal.
So those who are real skeptics, thanks for your thoughts and your work to help others see your point of view. To those who are mad at God and mad at those of us who beleive in Him, your anger betrays your true motives and therefore your true beleifs. I am sorry for whatever made you so hurt and angry with God. It is almost always the horrible failings of some MAN who is, by nature, woofully unable to even represent a deity, much less be one. But that's the point, isn't it? Man trying to be God or his own highest good results in a wake of hurt souls. How does it follow that we should now beleive in some "goodness" of man to save us by building some better world without relegion? Thank you for your serious consideration.
"Genital-shaped foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh dear, I'm never going to look at an oyster in quite the same way again.
I don't conceive or perceive of an "invisible" means of support, for the myths that have pervaded the human race probably since it's inception. Therefore, I am not sold on the conspiracy theory of 911 or any other event in my life. Most would agree that to put together a conspiracy takes a lot of organization, so secret an organization that the safety of the deed would have to be kept a secret for at least a lifetime. In my opinion, mankind just does not seem that capable of keeping secrets. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that when we look at some of the evil deeds that we as a species perform it just seems as though they were conspired, in retrospect. In addition, you have to consider that the gullibility of man is such that anything suggested can easily become an illusion. I just think that the normal everyday flow of events conspires to make us believe they are conspiratorial events. Do you really think that Christianity developed as a conspiracy, that Jesus just said: " if you 12 fisherman follow me closely and call me God we will eventually make millions, kill millions, cause havoc among nations, prevent and slow up scientific advancement for a thousand years and fool the hell out of all these gullible sheep like humans running around praying to help them attain an invisible afterlife. No, it just happened that way because of mans innate nature. One thing led to another and when we look back we think....conspiracy. We think conspiracy because of mans inherent nature to see patterns in all events of existence. And of course, it is easier to explain things; we just were not built for complicated thinking, simple patterns are just more efficient and easier to accept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole concept of synchronicity is based on our pattern accepting nature. We see a black cat and we turn the other way, we don't walk under a ladder because it is bad luck, don't pick up a penny on the ground when it is tails up....bad luck and we could go on forever. What are we thinking? We are thinking that nature or some invisible supernatural entity is conspiring to make these things happen. Get my point? In my opinion the spiritual world some believe in and the conspiratorial nature of man is due to pattern recognition gone astray. When in reality nature is just plundering along and the thousands of thoughts we have in a day occasionally synchronize with one of these plundering events and we think there is a conspiratorial pattern about it.
I don't conceive or perceive of an "invisible" means of support, for the myths that have pervaded the human race probably since it's inception. Therefore, I am not sold on the conspiracy theory of 911 or any other event in my life. Most would agree that to put together a conspiracy takes a lot of organization, so secret an organization that the safety of the deed would have to be kept a secret for at least a lifetime. In my opinion, mankind just does not seem that capable of keeping secrets. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that when we look at some of the evil deeds that we as a species perform it just seems as though they were conspired, in retrospect. In addition, you have to consider that the gullibility of man is such that anything suggested can easily become an illusion. I just think that the normal everyday flow of events conspires to make us believe they are conspiratorial events. Do you really think that Christianity developed as a conspiracy, that Jesus just said: " if you 12 fisherman follow me closely and call me God we will eventually make millions, kill millions, cause havoc among nations, prevent and slow up scientific advancement for a thousand years and fool the hell out of all these gullible sheep like humans running around praying to help them attain an invisible afterlife. No, it just happened that way because of mans innate nature. One thing led to another and when we look back we think....conspiracy. We think conspiracy because of mans inherent nature to see patterns in all events of existence. And of course, it is easier to explain things; we just were not built for complicated thinking, simple patterns are just more efficient and easier to accept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole concept of synchronicity is based on our pattern accepting nature. We see a black cat and we turn the other way, we don't walk under a ladder because it is bad luck, don't pick up a penny on the ground when it is tails up....bad luck and we could go on forever. What are we thinking? We are thinking that nature or some invisible supernatural entity is conspiring to make these things happen. Get my point? In my opinion the spiritual world some believe in and the conspiratorial nature of man is due to pattern recognition gone astray. When in reality nature is just plundering along and the thousands of thoughts we have in a day occasionally synchronize with one of these plundering events and we think there is a conspiratorial pattern about it.
I don't conceive or perceive of an "invisible" means of support, for the myths that have pervaded the human race probably since it's inception. Therefore, I am not sold on the conspiracy theory of 911 or any other event in my life. Most would agree that to put together a conspiracy takes a lot of organization, so secret an organization that the safety of the deed would have to be kept a secret for at least a lifetime. In my opinion, mankind just does not seem that capable of keeping secrets. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that when we look at some of the evil deeds that we as a species perform it just seems as though they were conspired, in retrospect. In addition, you have to consider that the gullibility of man is such that anything suggested can easily become an illusion. I just think that the normal everyday flow of events conspires to make us believe they are conspiratorial events. Do you really think that Christianity developed as a conspiracy, that Jesus just said: " if you 12 fisherman follow me closely and call me God we will eventually make millions, kill millions, cause havoc among nations, prevent and slow up scientific advancement for a thousand years and fool the hell out of all these gullible sheep like humans running around praying to help them attain an invisible afterlife. No, it just happened that way because of mans innate nature. One thing led to another and when we look back we think....conspiracy. We think conspiracy because of mans inherent nature to see patterns in all events of existence. And of course, it is easier to explain things; we just were not built for complicated thinking, simple patterns are just more efficient and easier to accept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole concept of synchronicity is based on our pattern accepting nature. We see a black cat and we turn the other way, we don't walk under a ladder because it is bad luck, don't pick up a penny on the ground when it is tails up....bad luck and we could go on forever. What are we thinking? We are thinking that nature or some invisible supernatural entity is conspiring to make these things happen. Get my point? In my opinion the spiritual world some believe in and the conspiratorial nature of man is due to pattern recognition gone astray. When in reality nature is just plundering along and the thousands of thoughts we have in a day occasionally synchronize with one of these plundering events and we think there is a conspiratorial pattern about it.
Yes, we are programmed to recognize patterns amongst a variety of sense information. The challenge we face is in identifying the slippery hand of truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for a fantastic pov article Mr. Shermer
This implies that government replaces parents once we become adults. It also implies the people who believe this suffer from 'inadequacy.' That is both sick and pathetic! At the end of four years, we can all look back and state seriously that we got exactly the government that we deserved!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe belief in a super natural power is an outcome of fear of unknown and something which acts as a powerful anchor or bulwork to support you in times of adversity and loss of hope. This is one of the most beautiful concepts evolved in antiquity by human mind. The other two concepts evolved are; the belief that you are the part and parcel of this super being, the Atma residing in your body and that, it is eternal, and the belief that this Atma takes re-birth in another form when one body is discarded or dies; your karma deciding the nature and form of that body.These concepts are powerful tools to save human beings from psychological depressing thoughts and helplessness. These have survived since ages not because these are true but people have faith on these concepts and these give them hope and assurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKKs
You really expect to bring people into the scientific community when you're doing at best, a superficial summary of theological thought? Why don't you stick to the sciences and leave the metaphysical discussions to the logicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis site has many wonderful articles, however, imagine if you will that you're me, on a theological website, and Behe starts rambling on about his "scientific ideas". Get it?
"metaphysical discussions"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept of course that Shermers model is testable. Everything else alike, individuals with stronger tendencies to test for patterns and agents without caring for reliable evidence would likely tend to be religious. This, as well as culturing effects of course, are likely why education tend to make religious people agnostic and agnostics atheists AFAIU PEW statistics.
It is _the content_ of religion that is empty metaphysics. The phenomena of religiosity is eminently observable.
"to bring people into the scientific community"
The scientific community is, by definition, populated by scientists. They can be religious. (Though as noted above, tend not to stay so.)
I believe you mean the "enlightened community" following the cultural revolution of the Enlightenment.
"I, too, am content; my contentedness comes from elsewhere but there is no need to measure each source."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisl
Content enough to dissect entire posts to prove your contentedness, right? ;)
Happy people don't give a damn! :)
"I, too, am content; my contentedness comes from elsewhere but there is no need to measure each source. Let us be happy to be content with life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're having to dissect entire posts to 'prove' that you're content, then you probably aren't ;)
Hey folks, I don't care /what/ the nature of your particular superstition is, only why you do or don't believe non-falsifiable hypotheses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides Piagetian evidence that children are most susceptible to assumptions of agenticity (I so wish Michael had used ordinary words: pattern, agency), there is also the evidence of moving visual illusions produced through mime and contact juggling techniques. For these techniques to work so well and so universally, all of us must have perceptual mechanisms that enable them.
I suspect that Penn & Teller's exploration of what enables us to see only the "magic" in magic tricks is much the same question.
=Eric
Has the writer of this article been reading Stuart Guthrie? Mr. Guthrie published a nearly identical theory some time ago in his book Faces in the Clouds. Plagiarism or convergent yet independent idea generation? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Journalist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case it is a good theory, and helps explain the "origins" of religious/superstitious belief, but it is not sufficient. Please do take into account tradition, and the human cognitive biases that accompany our social nature - those which make us tend to imitate other humans, especially when they speak with conviction, or suppress our objections and own better judgment when our peers express consensus. Thaler and Sunstein have a wonderful account of many of these in their book on choice architecture called Nudge. Another good book, in addition to Guthrie's, whose points you have echoed here, to keep in mind when considering this topic, which can be labeled, I suppose, "The Cognitive Biases That Have Kept Us Alive Up Until Now But Also Make Us Do Some Very Silly Things."
dear all
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe are thinking about the possible correlation between neurotransmitters (dopamine level in specific)/genes and positive emotional behavior/satisfaction, any idea about the related markers to be assayed and the technique to be employed.
sincerely yours
Leili E.Fard(post grad. Student)
The 3rd group bracketed by CTA and the 2nd one by TTA in the Y chromosome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....What?
Shoshin... If I understand you correctly in saying that a religious based IA is alright because it makes us more social. Then would it also be alright to move to a city with a low-crime/murder rate and then tell your children that if they ever leave the city they will die. The truth is that this will more than likely keep them safer but at what cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, interesting article but the comments section here is what has me riled up. It seems to me there's two discussions happening here, neither of which has anything to do with Shermer's hypothesis. One is the age old debate over the existence of God, the other, the tit-for-tat exchange on the historical cost benefit analysis of religion vs non-religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read all 90 comments, and probably 80% are ill informed nonsense. If you aspire to add something new to a 2500 year old philosophical debate then please spend some time familiarizing yourself with the arguments that have come before and been refuted, i.e. Pascal's Wager.
When I see straw men trotted out like "Atheist regimes killed millions of people", and then see numerous failed attempts to refute the argument by atheists who are obviously as lazy as their counterparts making the claim, I have to step in and point out that once again, brighter minds have spoken on the issue.
Again, this isn't my argument, it's the logical response to the failed attempt to equate atheism to despotism offered previously by several other "great thinkers" of our time;
While Atheism was a core tenant of many of these extremely oppressive and genocidal regimes, it is putting the cart before the horse to say that these regimes were genocidal and oppressive BECAUSE they were atheist. Stalin recognized that religion was a challenge to the communist ideal, so he sought to stamp it out, but he wasn't trying to replace belief in God with belief in nothing, he sought to fill the void with forced worship of the State, another failed ideology.
The modern atheist does not demand the obliteration of religion. While we occasionally indulge in the unrealistic fantasy of a world full of peaceful free thinkers, our realistic desire is to have GOVERNMENTS free of religion, that allow the people to believe what they choose.
Stalin's (as a placeholder for all such ideologically driven regimes) form of rule was no closer to this ideal then the Taliban or North Korea is today.
To paraphrase Harris and many others, You can't show an example of a belief system or world view that is dangerous or immoral because it requires too much evidence, logic or reason. You can only provide examples of alternative radical ideologies that were absent religion. This is not what the modern atheistic/scientific world view is all about. It is quite simply, exactly the opposite.
Oops, I didn't realize that Sci-AM limits the number of comments you can view before you register, so I thought there were only the 90 comments that I saw originally. If someone has presented this argument in comments 91-160 then I apologize for the redundancy and the possibility that this may be completely out of context with recent posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember clearly the moment that I realized that it was ALL bullshit... not just God, but ghosts, monsters, aliens, mystics, mind-readers, mediums, ALL of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was reading The God Delusion when the epiphany occurred. I already knew that I was an atheist, but Richard Dawkins had said something that made it all come together and I wanted to scream it out the window!
Since then I have never once been uneasy in a darkened room like, embarrasingly, I had been countless times before. I've stopped watching idiotic TV shows that pray on the vulnerability of "agentistic?" minds. I laugh with confidence at the purveyors of bullshit. My life is literally better since that day.
Thanks RD (and MS). You'll never know.
Bob
To me, being young and obviously uneducated, I just ask the question "does it really matter?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes it really matter who is right or wrong? I think that man has evolved into something much bigger than the "Leavers" with the "well I'm right and you're wrong" system, and I like to believe that there are bigger topics to deal with than something that is ultimately out of our control.
I do not believe in a god, but I will never criticize someone who does. Those are THEIR beliefs, and they have as much right to them as I do to mine.
Why can't humanity learn to accept one another's beliefs, while keeping common sense based morals, and argue things that are affecting us NOW?
What happens (or does not happen) after death will happen. We can not prevent it.
I will continue to make my life as good as I can make it now.
So, in the end, does it actually matter who is right?
It matters in the sense that western secular democracy still requires defending against those that wish it to be a theocracy, the state ruled by the church. It also matters in the sense that the current battle between the west and radical Islam can not be won with bombs or spies, but only with ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil the vast majority of those living in Muslim countries come to view their religion as a personal, internal experience, and that universal human rights must triumph over dogma for the good of human kind, we are in for more then a bit of trouble.
Until the fundamentalist xian right decides that our laws should be based on the common good and universal human rights and not their good book, we're in for a lot of trouble.
Until fundamentalist zionist jews realize that biblical prophecy is no justification for the whole sale oppression of millions of palestinians, we're in for a whole lot of trouble. Until those same palestinians realize that there is a peaceful way to combat opression and that martyrdom only propegates the cycle of violence, we're in for a whole lot of trouble.
Yeah, it matters.
Easy. There are two ways to see the world. As it reveals itself to be, and as we would like it to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople just choose the one that excites them the most.
If it were proven that this earthly life is ALL we have...then who would die for His country or ideals without prospect of greater reward?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Imagine there's no heaven"...nothing to kill or die for..."
World without religion must be a more peaceful place...
If it were proven that this earthly life is ALL we have...then who would die for His country or ideals without prospect of greater reward?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Imagine there's no heaven"...nothing to kill or die for..."
World without religion must be a more peaceful place...
At the very beginning the author has made his position clear:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns." so if it's all a load of baloney to him, the article is hardly going to be impartial and clearly he is an evolutionist.
Also this statement:
"There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them"
Hello!!! One needs to do a study to know this? anyone that has had children or even pets would know this!
The use of an intelectually derived vocabulary, credits from papers and degrees, do not make the author an authority on this subject. "paternicity, agenticity" these words and many of the terms he uses are designed to elevate his own status. He is not concerned with whether you believe anything he has written, he is not concerned with your own personal welfare, he just hoped that SA would
publish his article, viewpoint and get paid for it. (and get some kudos from his peers!)
Unlike the author, Christians speak with a PERSONAL INTEREST. Our innate desire to do what is right and just is not the product of evolution. If you get mad at people on the bus because they are swearing, what drives you? is it essential to your survival? No!
Christian intentions are simple, save your life so you can live eternally.
Growing old, facing disease, angst, tragedies and dying are not normal and not what our Creator intended. There is a confusion, 'obfuscation' if you will, of the TRUTH. There is only one truth - I can see it clearly and I am both intellectual and a believer in God. The two can and do harmonize perfectly if you open your eyes.
A problem with belief in a creator is that there tends to be no middle ground and just as the bible itself says, it causes a 'division, down to the marrow', even between brother and sister, husband/wife!
Christians should set themselves apart from ALL worldly thinking on such matters - do not subscribe to the concepts of organizations such as 'creationists' or 'Intelligent design' - which tend to be fanatical and fail by trying to explain the metaphysical in human terms. In many ways they are further obfuscating the truth.
The fact that we are able to recognize patterns (correctly or falsely), make decisions (good or bad) does not mean we are incapable of distinguishing between worldly superstitions ie: 'mumbojumbo' and what is real.
Being a scientist does not preclude belief in a Creator - read the book a 'privileged planet' for human view!
At the very beginning the author has made his position clear:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns." so if it's all a load of baloney to him, the article is hardly going to be impartial and clearly he is an evolutionist.
Also this statement:
"There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them"
Hello!!! One needs to do a study to know this? anyone that has had children or even pets would know this!
The use of an intelectually derived vocabulary, credits from papers and degrees, do not make the author an authority on this subject. "paternicity, agenticity" these words and many of the terms he uses are designed to elevate his own status. He is not concerned with whether you believe anything he has written, he is not concerned with your own personal welfare, he just hoped that SA would
publish his article, viewpoint and get paid for it. (and get some kudos from his peers!)
Unlike the author, Christians speak with a PERSONAL INTEREST. Our innate desire to do what is right and just is not the product of evolution. If you get mad at people on the bus because they are swearing, what drives you? is it essential to your survival? No!
Christian intentions are simple, save your life so you can live eternally.
Growing old, facing disease, angst, tragedies and dying are not normal and not what our Creator intended. There is a confusion, 'obfuscation' if you will, of the TRUTH. There is only one truth - I can see it clearly and I am both intellectual and a believer in God. The two can and do harmonize perfectly if you open your eyes.
A problem with belief in a creator is that there tends to be no middle ground and just as the bible itself says, it causes a 'division, down to the marrow', even between brother and sister, husband/wife!
Christians should set themselves apart from ALL worldly thinking on such matters - do not subscribe to the concepts of organizations such as 'creationists' or 'Intelligent design' - which tend to be fanatical and fail by trying to explain the metaphysical in human terms. In many ways they are further obfuscating the truth.
The fact that we are able to recognize patterns (correctly or falsely), make decisions (good or bad) does not mean we are incapable of distinguishing between worldly superstitions ie: 'mumbojumbo' and what is real.
Being a scientist does not preclude belief in a Creator - read the book a 'privileged planet' for human view!
Finally SA embraces Alvin Plantinga's argument against naturalism and evolution!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural born?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasn't born believing religious nonsense and rejected it as ridiculous when I was exposed to it as a child.
Superstition isn't "natural". - at least not for all of us. Most people are just weak followers: they believe what others believe. That tendency may be "natural" or at least depressingly common but I don't think there's anything natural about superstition.
holy sh_t! how did i end up on this page? was it the lord that brot me here or a random misplaced click? maybe god wants me to write something. i feel the spirit moving my fingers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgod wants me to say unto u all: what kind of petty tyrant do u think i am, demanding that u throw yrselves on yr knees and worship me or i wont let u into my pretty little estate up in heaven? i'll judge u on how u live yr lives, not what u believe. if all u believers dont stop pestering me 24/7 with yr whiney prayers, i'm going to send u to the bad place.
holy sh_t! how did i end up on this page? was it the lord that brot me here or a random misplaced click? maybe god wants me to write something. i feel the spirit moving my fingers now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgod wants me to say unto u all: what kind of petty tyrant do yee think i am, demanding that yee throw yeeselves on yee knees and worship me or i wont let yee into my pretty little estate up in heaven? i'll judge yee on how yee live yr lives, not what yee believe. if all yee believers in me dont stop pestering me 24/7 with yr whiney prayers, i'm going to send yee to the bad place.
I'll add one more comment to Notatheist, atheism is not Nihlism. The lack of belief in a deity does not mean belief in nothing. This is a common mistake theistic people make. In fact, I would argue once you shed belief in the supernatural (all types), you can truly "believe" in the world around you. There is so much to see if you open your eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOptimus, is at the other end. He believes in the supernatural. His "truth" is that he will live forever if he behaves a certain way. All natural law is discarded and a supernatural power will make him live forever because several thousand years ago someone managed to get this written down. Now it is called "faith". Faith is the ability to believe something in the absence of fact. There is also some evidence showing that this has an evolutionary link coming from our need to believe whatever our parents tell us as small children. As we evolved, the genetic strain that listened without fail (i.e. don't eat that poisonous berry, stay away from that dangerous animal, etc.) survived better, as a side effect, we evolved to accept things without needing facts. Now we call it faith and think it is special.
So, Optimus, you can thank evolution that you believe you will live forever (or eternally, whatever that really means). However, like the rest of us, you will not.
Enjoy the life you have. I will enjoy mine. It is truly special. Of that, I am sure we agree.
Bill
"Everything in Relative to Me"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think therefore I am. Everything I think is me. Even in placing my trust elsewhere, I am trusting myself. Even in placing my point of view from the perspective of a superior agent, my point of view is inevitably relative to me. Because my knowledge of what is elsewhere exists because I myself exist. Should I one day cease to think, my existence should end. Should there be another form of me, it can not be acknowledged or conveyed by the form of intelligence which I and others commonly recognize. It would be unknown and unable to be disputed.
I am with you... for whatever reason, I have always been what some might refer to as "spiritually dead". I can be very emotional and I enjoy chocolate. However, the whole god thing doesn't click with me... it never has. I pretended for the sake of others, but only ever succeeded in feeling foolish. maybe some sort of Zen thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To me, being young and obviously uneducated, I just ask the question "does it really matter?" "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is, of course, the very smartest question to ask. The answer is unfortunately that it does, since religious dogma and actions carries immoral and nonfactual baggage that destroys much.
" if it's all a load of baloney to him, the article is hardly going to be impartial and clearly he is an evolutionist."
Shermer is a skeptic, not a biologist who are the ones researching basic biology such as evolution. But FWIW there really is false patterns, i.e. baloney, irrespective of biology. You can get those out of any algorithm if you tweak it to make false positives. Much like your proposal of creationism ("evolutionist") is baloney based on such.
Shermer is only proposing a widely disseminated hypothesis explaining why false agency, creationism, and religion in general occurs so easily. (Other explanations correlated to this is achievement of social status and power et cetera.)
"you can thank evolution that you believe you will live forever (or eternally, whatever that really means). However, like the rest of us, you will not."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually he can thank evolution that he, like no individual, live forever. Such basically static biological systems, which are nowhere in evidence just like there are nowhere in evidence other eternal agents, were likely competed to extinction by evolutionary populations those genomes can adapt fully. (Much like basically static religious systems and their fantasy agents are competed by modern "fully adaptable", or learning, science.)
lol, this is scientifically very funny. killing the invisible agent and disposing the head and body. but what happened to the hand?? the undead hand is haunting like a spectre in american academia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol, this is scientifically very funny. killing the invisible agent. disposing his head and body. but what happened to the hand??? there is a spectre haunting american academia...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly what if any scientific studies and reliability correlations has the author done to confirm the terms and concepts that he claims to have invented here. This appears to be an very interesting speculation but about as valid my next door neighbor's theory that the local raccoon plans its garbage can raids on how many beers the animal sees him drinking on the porch that evening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting. The inferences drawn have a rather unexpected resonance with the Buddhist perspective of human experience. A fundamental tenet of Buddhism relates to the notion of a self : we imagine and tenaciously grasp this self : (a) which we try to please [food, drink, sex etc], but since these pleasures are impermanent we find existence to be unsatisfactory; (b) around which we accumulate assets material [eg wealth] or non-material [eg position, power], unwanted changes to which case us distress. Thus, according to Buddhism, the general unsatisfactoriness of human existence [ dukkha ] can ultimately be traced back to this notion of a self. The key though is that this self is not real it is conceived, imagined; a delusion. So, phrasing the Buddhist view in the authors parlance, the concept of a self is a very large Type I error, perhaps the biggest Type I error one makes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuddhist meditative practice is aimed at focusing inward, with the objective of observing and understanding that what we actually possess is a stream of natural physical and mental phenomena over which we largely have no control, and thereby gradually weaning ourselves off this concept of a self [and in the process weaning ourselves off the derivative greed and grasping]. That is, to train ourselves to rectify this particular Type I error.
When I think of the economic mess we're in today and consider Obama's economic policies, faith, boogie men, and messiahs have nothing to do with it. I agree with some proposals, disagree with others, but I'm hopeful that someone is at least attempting to fix things. Well, now I have to go burn incense at my Obama shrine. Ha! It's unfortunate that Shermer considers so many of us rubes, and his
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"mission" to free us from our own ignorance often seems a bit messianic in itself.
When I think of the economic mess we're in today and consider Obama's economic policies, faith, boogie men, and messiahs have nothing to do with it. I agree with some proposals and disagree with others, but I'm hopeful that someone is at least attempting to fix things. Well, now I have to go burn incense at my Obama shrine. Ha! It's unfortunate that Shermer considers so many of us rubes, and his
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"mission" to free us from our own ignorance often seems oddly messianic in itself. He comes close to proselytizing the scepticism which in spirituality he so heartily despises. Still, I would enjoy conversing with him someday.
Fortunately, philosophical debate did not end with the brand of positivism that Michael Shermer wields with all the fervor of a true believer. His positivism claims the mantle of scientificity and the exclusive warrant to confer the status of the "real".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still think it is bogus for Schermer to say that conspiracy theories depend on the same neural mechanism as anthromorphizing polygons. Personally I don't trust the government or the news because they look and sound like they are lying. But I will concede that it is patternicity which makes me sure that he is one of THEM.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgenerally, its not the idea of god that worries us just the religion...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswith religion everyone can lose...
---------------------
and if god is really just, he would understand the conclusion and skepticism anyway...if i am punished for it, i'll have no regrets...
All you people arguing why you believe or don't believe in invisible agents. The article is about a possible evolutionary basis. But the fact in the modern world is that you are taught to believe in the supernatural. The fact that the beliefs are so diverse is proof enough for me that any evolutionary basis is totally irrelevant. Let us not forget that our evolutionary timeline is millions of years. Religion is only a very few thousand years old. The perception of NOT knowing, and therfore trying to create an explanation, is only a little older than religion. Michael is a little too obsessive and needs a cocktail. Believing in religion is about giving away control over your life. When you give away control, guess what happens? Someone else gets control over you. Believing in the boogie man or other non-religious invisible agents is about fear of the unknown. A more appropriate comparison would be religion and Santa Claus. Be good...get a prize! Clearly, humans needed someone to be in control as a survival tool. Pattern recognition seems to me to be more of a mathematical process of a much later period in our evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole is composed of the Essence (of God) which manifests via the heavens. The heavens elaborate designs to shape and project beings into the physical and lowest spiritual world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod works in two ways, by defining laws, and by direct intervention. Hence in our realm (the physical and lowest spiritual world) there are four classes of method of action: laws spiritual and material, and interventions spiritual and material.
Scientific method, by its nature, is suited to finding the laws of the physical and even spiritual worlds. It is not suited to detecting direct intervention, since scientific method deals in and requires repeatability.
Scientific method, since it looks for manifested patterns of cause and effect, is not an instrument which can be used to detect the Essence (of God), since the Essence is unmanifest.
Scientific method is mostly used to detect physical laws. If the bounds of its admissible evidence are expanded to include perceptions by human beings beyond the range of the physical senses, scientific method can be used to detect the laws of the lowest spiritual world and the heavens.
The perception of the Essence is best left to the spiritual sciences.
Your points were well made.my experience,however,as a health professional,is that there IS something after death - and it is NOT always pretty.Everything hangs on the truth or otherwise of the Bible - whose prophecies have a disturbing habit of coming true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe revival of Israel and the resurrection of its dead language was predicted and is unmatched in history - after an absence of nearly 2000 years.
if you will look,the socio - political climate in the world appears to increasingly fulfill scripture every year.
Just the sheer complexity of a single human cell gives the lie to evolution - which in itself is a sort of religion - man as his own god.
i dont pretend to know all the answers and i respectfully allow you probably know more about a lot of things than i do.
i just think the Bible is worthy of an unbiased inspection as to what it does and does not say.
Many generations of people have found it reliable,trustworthy and true.were they ALL biased foolish hypocrites?Look and you will see that in terms of textual quality and consistency,archaological and historical accuracy and fulfilled prophecy,there is NOTHING can compare to the Bible.Respectfully yours, Matt (perth,Australia)
Pejorative and self contradicting article. All this article states is that humans seek logical patterns; sometimes they are real and sometimes fabricated. Tying these natural tendencies to brain functionality in the cortex doesnt explain anything new. Further, the article uses non-sequitur arguments to discredit invisible agents or supernatural design, by attempting to equate the idea that people believe bananas are aphrodisiacs with the belief in supernatural forces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors argument could just as easily be extended to the skeptic perspective, which is that large scale and quantum systems can be generated out of random events. The author still believes in the laws of nature, only now attributes the agency to random events. The belief that these random events can generate logical systems without further explanation is entirely philosophical, not scientific.
At the end of the day, the author confuses scientific functional understanding with explanatory cause.
The author has neglected what is perhaps the most powerful influence on the acceptance of agency. That is agency by association. If a person can convince others that their knowledge of the specific attributes of an agency infers upon them status and some part of the agent's power, then naturally there would be many who would seek to describe the agent and to be its worldly annointed one. Unfortunately this describes the madness that infects most of the human race, making peace or heaven on earth a remote possibility. suggest we identify all budding sub-authorities of agency and provide hem with cognitive therapy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a matter of fact, it appears as if the author is trying to become the annointed one of the anti-agency agent. If he succeeds, perhaps we will crucify him, or else he will figure out some way to get our money. Big wheel keeps on turnin'.... oops big wheel would be an agency as well. This could lead us to a theory of everything!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's time to move this world beyond casperism. Everything invention we have of value is the result of the application of rationality, whether it's a tetanus shot or administrative law. It's no coincidence that the period of human history during which belief in supernatural forces was greatest was the period during which civilization fell face down in the mud and remained there for the next 12oo years. It's also no coincidence that we informally refer to that period as the Dark Ages. Look around you and be honest. If your child were deathly ill and you could choose only either a modern medical doctor or prayer...which would it be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you need something to believe in? Stand in the middle of a field outside the city on a starry night and look up. We can make that our future...or not. It's our choice. But if we someday reach those lights, we will first have to believe in ourselves and realize that it's all up to us. No greater power, no deliverace from above. Casperitic worldviews can destroy any possibility of growing to the next level of civilization, because they necessarily involve concepts such as "saved" and "damned", including some and excluding others. From a secular-humanist pont of view, we are all in this to succeed or fail together. There are no chosen ones; just us.
Pascal's Wager again. Religion as afterlife insurance. Better to believe, you know, just in case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is the last argument one can use when all the others don't work.
Pascal's Wager is still a bad bet. What if you've got the wrong god? What if it's Shiva, or Zeus, or Ra, or Odin you should be praying to? With all the thousands of gods in human history, how do you know you have the right one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's better to live freely, and die knowing you've lived as best you could, than to spend your life worrying ab out the "afterlife".
Mr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the fatality of "type II" errors, you might want to reconsider for a moment a few "conspiracy theories." There have been real conspiracies in history, after all. Even Carl Sagan was willing to consider for a moment that Earth, for example, may have been visited by other more advanced civilizations (using sub-light speed travel) in a cosmos which is far older than life on Earth and in which life and intelligent life may be quite prevalent. This is but one example. Why not leave unproven (not disproved) theories remain just that -- theories and not, "conspiracy theories."
Just exactly who is being objective? Just exactly who has an 'agenda'?
D. Bell
"As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that your brain is all that big. It's a fact that a few thousand people own most of this planet and thus they have control. Your idea of "randomness from the bottom up" is something only Mr. Rogers would agree with.
Mr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNormally, you would have more credibility in writing such an article, for Scientific American, 25 years ago. However, during this age of information to conduct research, if only on the web, I am surprised that you did not focus your research to come to such conclusions. Your ignorant conclusions and gross generalizations makes you appear to be an idiot, discrediting Scientific American.
If you are to believe that in quantum physics the observer influences "truth" then you are free to arrange your world as you see fit. Just be nice to your neighbor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you ever notice when an athiest gets nervous or startled their first words are usually: "Oh my God!" In the beginning their was Chaos. Energy, matter/antimatter and somehow it became intelligent. It matters not the level of intelligence. Being able to think and reason happens on a molecular level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you think this energy cares whether you call it Zeus, Yahweh or Allah? It's a scientific fact that everything has an energy signature. Intelligence progresses and evolves. Chaos was here in the beginning, it is the most ancient energy there is and if it evolved enough to create everything then think of how intelligent it truly is. Do you know it's also a proven fact that the body suddenly loses weight at the time of death? Some scientists actually equate that to the loss of the spirit energy or soul. Radio wave energy science has discovered goes on forever, it's how Seti hopes to one day find a signal of intelligent life from another planet (only if they make radios), but if simple radio energy goes on forever, then why wouldn't the energy of the human spirit? If this does not stop and make you think of the possibility of life after death then you my friend have a bunch of questions to answer for me because obviously you must be smarter than me. Do you really think it was random that all this beauty just evolved?
If you bring up the hate and evil, my answer is if there was not an equal force of evil for good than neither one could exist. For every reaction there must be an equal and opposite reaction. We would not understand hot if there wasn't cold, high if there wasn't low, life if there wasn't death. It only stands to reason there has to be non-believers if there are believers....
@Chris Jones... "I know there are others like me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not alone, Chris. I may not describe myself as an 'atheist' but, like you, I invested time and effort into Believing. Not by choice, but because my parents insisted. I lived in the 'Bible Belt' and I was surrounded by countless smiling, glassy-eyed Believers who wanted to pray with me and who didn't hesitate to tell me that I'd burn in Hell for Eternity if I dared to do the unthinkable and (gasp!) think for myself. In the face of being constantly asked to do so, I joined friends at their various houses of worship. But, none ever felt 'right' to me. Later, I began to study beliefs held long before the Bible, as well as the early years of our modern religions. This self-directed study freed me from all residual doubt I had about doubting. (In particular - what the early Christian church fathers did; why; how and to whom.) I stopped requiring the constant presence of a parent, guardian, babysitter when I became an adult. As for the patriarchal, misogynist, intolerant 'God' of the last 2000 years... "Hooey" is a Divine word. One of my favorite quotes: "Be Your Own God."
theres nothing wrong with having or wanting beliefs. its our God given right and yea this guy is using his freedom of speech but this guy needs to realize the rest of the world has their rights. but anyway theres nothing wrong with believing in God or aliens or whatever its our right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, just when the demonic activity is becoming greaeter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnow we get this artuicle that says its all in our head.
RIGHT! it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the world is demon infested,
I don't think Hood has thought this all out before he wrote this . Seems like he presumes Science has seen and heard everything in this Universe already . We are sadly too burdened with our physical limitations of our bodies to truly know everything in absolute truth . How can we know what the universe feels like if we can't hold it in our hands ? What is beyond the furthest that we can ever see ? If a tree falls on the other side of the Universe ,beyond our sense of hearing , does it make a sound ? Until we can truly answer these questions we can't say for sure on either side of all this .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy friends, you may not believe in The Most High GOD, Jehova/Yahweh, you may deny His existance, you may hate Him, you may reject Him. If you are right and I am wrong then you have lost nothing, BUT if I am right and you are wrong then you have lost spending eternity in heaven, in the presence of Jesus Christ and possibly your relatives (parents, grand parents, your wife/husband and children). Is this a gamble you can afford to take a chance on?????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article definitely helps the cause of science regarding the supernatural and I'm definitely all for that.... Unfortunately the scientific community will never be as open-minded about the fact that science and the supernatural should have a symbiotic relationship as that is the only way to study our universe. I have two examples.... particle entanglement and dark matter. No more need be said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTopkick, to suggest that one should believe in a particular god or religion because there is a possibility that it's true is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? It doesn't say much for your faith, either. I'm sure God/Jesus/Yahweh/Allah/Zeus wouldn't be all too thrilled with your save-ass approach to faith. Also, I've always said that when I die, if I find out that the Christians were right all along, I'd rather spend eternity in Hell with the strippers and party-hounds than with a bunch of Bible-thumping Jesus freaks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's my assertion that one's beliefs will greatly determine one's perception. We can not totally seperate ourselves from our perception of our reality. It never ceases to amaze me how narrow the spectrum many folks perceive life. If scientific instruments can not measure it or if it isn't printed in the New York Times it must not be true. I do agree with this article with many of these conspiracy theories. I resent those conspiracy theories that implicate the US government with 9/11 and JFK's assassination. These events were much more complex and profound than any of us can comprehend. I don't fault the government for not understanding. People demand the government have answers to everything. what if the government doesn't know? I've never heard the government say they didn't know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn our world we literally live in an ocean teeming with life. Seen and unseen. The real question is why do some people and cultures not only see but interact with that unseen life all around us? It is not my place to prove anything to anyone of this. But how is this that many can not see yet it is right in front of them? That baffles me. Is it because their instruments can not measure it? Is it because the world their minds have constructed would shatter if something didn't fit into that reality they assert is the only reality?
It would be particularly unnerving I suppose if people only knew they are being observed. There are no malevolent entities controlling humanity. That's absurd. Though and I guarantee you there are entities who manipulate or influence those who live in fear.
Terrestrial and extra terrestrial entities are very much a part of that ocean of life around us. They are a part of my world. The government/military does not disclose about ET's. I don't think the government should disclose and for good reasons.
I look forward to the day science catches up with reality.
Gee, I wish I was smart, more evolved and didn't need God
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that this seems to be the case. From early childhood the human mind learns through associations. This is why often some psychics, horoscopes etc., ring a bell with someone because they have given you a false positive because it fits the pattern. It comes deep from the psyche and most of us still have a twinge of superstition. I do not include the concept of a diety in this as I believe we are all spiritual. However, we are not far from the fireside of our ancestors looking for answers by applying our existing knowledge against new data we will either associate with to make sense of it and explain what exactly it is or search for more scientific methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKids believe in Santa Clause, adults believe in aliens. Religious people believe in God, non-religious people believe in international conspiracies. I think it's a fair game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who need IA's to cope with their own emotional needs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare not going to be convinced of anything else, regardless of
any and all rational, scientific theories. Only those whose
emotional needs are undecided are up for grabs and they should investigate both a scientific view along with intelligent design to determine where their own needs lie. Criticizing another view when emotions are part of the equation will not
strengthen your argument as a scientific view.
gewisn raises an interesting point which to my knowledge has not been explored adequately: the fact that religion is not just a system of belief, but is also (largely speaking) a social phenomenon. In fact it often involves social hierarchy, and can sometimes be called a political body. When people talk about the negative effects of religion, they talk mostly about political actions, e.g., killing or persecuting people who are not members of a certain religious group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I don't believe, as gewisn does, that agentism is associated with social hierarchy, I think the need for hierarchy is a crucial point. My religious friends seem to feel a strong need for authority; they don't need to be the authority, they need to have authority over them. That authority can be human or a supernatural being.
And there is a sub-point: that authority need not be a human being. It can also be words, laws, "truth". One very bright friend of mine says he feels the need for doctrine, rigid and eternal. That authority could even be certain rituals.
gewisn raises an interesting point which to my knowledge has not been explored adequately: the fact that religion is not just a system of belief, but is also in large part a social phenomenon. In fact it often involves social hierarchy, and can sometimes be called a political body. When people talk about the negative effects of religion, they are talking mostly about political action, e.g., killing or persecuting people who are not members of a certain religious group. If somebody had a purely personal, individual religion, who would complain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I don't believe, as gewisn does, that agentism is associated with social hierarchy, I think the need for social hierarchy is a crucial point. My religious friends seem to feel a strong need for authority; they don't need to be the authority, they need to have authority over them. That authority can be human or a supernatural being.
But that authority need not be a human being. It can also be words, laws, "truth". One very bright friend of mine says he feels the need for doctrine, rigid and eternal. That authority could even be certain rituals.
The social aspect of religion is something the anti-religionists fail to recognize, I feel. When you ask somebody to question their religion, you are also asking them to question their family, their friends, and their trusted teachers, something many people are not willing to do. People don't just believe in things because they see agency and pattern in the world, but because because people they love and trust believe them also.
That is an area ripe for research.
Skepticism now is less a scientific effort at understanding and more and more a religious position-a position that states from the perspective of the skeptic what can and what cannot exist. What if agency in this case is interpreted as the laws of physics, for example? Would that not be a job for a lawgiving God? Is it any more preposterous than string theory or "weird action at a distance?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do the spiritully/psychically blind always think no one else can , or should be able to , see beyond what they can not ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's religious and job protectionism. It's difficult to untwine the politics from religion if not nearly impossible. The string theory is an interesting hypothesis. I can guarantee light traverses the dimensions. More so in one direction. I know this from direct observations. I suspect that being the reason for the mis-interpetation of dark matter and gamma ray bursts. Someone once said, there's a pink elephant in the room and people are denying it's there. However, what do I know? I am a lay person. Give me a real scientist, a skeptic with an open mind without religious or political prejudice and I will show them directly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not believe in God. I have told my children that I do not want a church service when I die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there is no God.
But what if? If there is a god why does he/she require that I believe in him/her. I think it is insulting to someone as exalted as he/she is portrayed in the various religous tracts. If God needs my believing in him/her, then he/she is like a little child throwing a tantrum at the smallest setback.
If God is as omnipotent, omniscient (and all the other omni- you can think of) as they say, then surely his first priority would be that I behave charitably to my fellow-beings - not that I expressly believe in him/her.
Are we controlled by invisible agents? Does this imply that people should be led to believe there is no CIA or NSA or their foreign equivalents manipulating the world? Before anyone complains about conspiracy theory, just look at the number of countries that have been ruined by the acts of conflicting secret services trying to gain control of their ressources?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read your December 2008 column on "Patternicity" with great interest because I felt it would somehow mesh with my own thoughts on the development of 'religiosity' in us humans, or our propensity to believe in god(s). But something was missing, and I couldn't quite bring it all together. I think the "Agenticity" column does the trick! Thank you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it possible that we humans believed in god(s) even before we became humans, and that it was an inevitable result of our hierarchical social structure and growing intellectual capacity. As social animals we are imbued with great sensitivity to our own status within the troop, and the ability to model the moods and feelings of other members in our minds. This empathy, combined with your Patternicity and Agenticity , leads straight to God!
Any social hierarchy goes from the smallest and weakest to the largest and most powerful, but does it stop there? My hypothesis is that it doesnt, and that we are programmed to think beyond the alpha-male to the existence of a being or beings that control the things that our leaders clearly cannot. Agenticity!
Many years ago I was watching a documentary on chimps. The troop was caught in a rain storm, with most of them huddled under trees or using large leaves as umbrellas. Then the alpha-chimp went into a frenzy of screaming and jumping, and climbed a tree and started shrieking and shaking his arms at the sky. And the rain stopped!
It is by no means clear that this was his intent, and if it was, whether it was just good timing, or whether he saw the sky getting lighter and he made his own luck. But it was a great show in any event!
It was this footage that got me to thinking that maybe religion is far older than we can even imagine!
@Osler5: "It's just unbearable emptiness of nonexistence". Emptiness is hardly unbearable--it is actually the unity and light of God that you purport to seek, but never find because you don't look within.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that's not a paraphrase of Buddha, that's from my own perceptions.
Ah, but communists and all the others who kill in the name of an ideology are simply exhibiting belief-sickness/pseudo-religious habits and courses of action. They're one in the same!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile reading Michael Shermers Sceptic column in our July 2009 issue, I was reminded of Philip K. Dicks rather definitive definition of reality: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Clear and succinct. Naughty me, I have been known to write that places. Oh, and he also said: Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile reading Michael Shermer’s Sceptic column in our July 2009 issue, I was reminded of Philip K. Dick’s rather definitive definition of reality: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Clear and succinct. Naughty me, I have been known to write that places. Oh, and he also said: Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismichael shermer is ANYTHING but objective. he has made a career of being unable to tolerate the acceptance (or the existence) of anything he has not personally experienced, and being the "guiding light" of reason to a poor, deluded society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWheew! and i thought i'd have to think for myself! "patternicity" is nothing more than our species deplorable tendency to MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. yes. people must rush in define, label and explian events. this is caused by the left brain's overbearing need to dominate experience.
the "skeptical movement" degenerateds at worst into unabashed ridicule before consideration, and at best smug suoeriority. skepticism is not science.
I enjoyed this very much. Although I do know unexplainable things happen, unexplainable to me that is, I do not believe in fairies, and angels, evil etc. I do however, believe in my minds ability to create sub realities, share them with and affect others, and sit and wonder about the energy that is experienced while doing so. What is emotional energy? Why is it so powerful that it can alter perception? Why do certain feelings - present themselves in particular places in the body. I am aware of our neural network. I chill out meditate and allow my imagination to expand. I shift. My perception shifts and I know that a God did not do that. I know this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do also believe that governments do in fact make decisions that are not for the people only but instead for economic and survivalist ambitions - equated to power. I enjoy conspiracy theory because it stretches ones imagination farther out than a blind trust, complete surrender and a then the God like woundedness of why things happen. War is created. God's do not do this.
So, reality is ugly sometimes and created by people. Supernatural excuses have been utilized by governments, religious institutions and others - for control.
People believe weirdness because they have been taught to do so. History illustrates this. They have been programmed to tap into the realities created by others. Not conspiracies, but realities. People are victims of supernatural fantasies that have been created by some very powerful people.
Things are shifting. Science has more of a spot light now. Scientists will not be banned from communities or suppressed by the religious elite.
People are becoming more aware - learning out to sort out reality. This will take time to evolve as our minds map out new behavioral interpretations of experiences we encounter.
Cheers
Mr. Shermer fails to break the cases into categories of: LIKELY COINCIDENCES vs FACTUAL ELEMENTS (some obscure if you only listen to mainstream media).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen the "Man on Mars" image and notice it's really fuzzy: suggesting a human head image using very few pixels. Closer shots (which we ought to do on a fly-by for many purposes) ought to show detail that this is normal rock formations. (I'd say less tha 1/million odds it's a nicely sculpted human face! - which would cause us to dump so-far-logical assumptions!)
On the other hand I've seen printed rap "rock" lyrics calling for killing white folks. This is "satanic" to me in the sense of being toxic to my well-being! (One need not believe in a literal Satan to call something satanic as the word is used.)
Now Mr. Shermer belittles the Illuminati, but it was a real gang with a power agenda, lead by Adam Weishaupt, whose activity became known when he got caught! (See 1790s book by Robeson "Proofs of Conspiracy.") The Bilderbergers are very rich men who actually meet to plan world "progress" and obviously their continued power that is very real money influence. Money clearly buys influence! AIPAC influence has touched many Congressmen! (Ask Hall Turner about data on this.) Rothschilds clearly have great wealth and thus power to steer events... for example SOMEBODY is pumping much into the "green" movement (based on dubious Science that we must "save" the world by attacking burning of carbon) and now I just heard that Rothschilds will be promoting Canada's nuclear reactors (and financing them - getting indebted folks to pay interest for years and years - their usury game!)
Indeed, most global corporations, bankers and controllers have "agendas" for "the good"... especially their own good!
Bigfoot, UFOs abd the second shooter on tyhe grassy knoll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo this list we should add "string theory/brane theory," the current scientific flim-flam scam.
Bigfoot, UFOs and the second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo this list we should add "string theory/brane theory," the latest scientific flim-flam scam.
When I was 6 or 7 I asked my mother why, if we cut an orange with a sharp knife the orange does not become sharp. I can still picture the sharp edges of the orange segments that inspired the qustion. In this piece in places you may confuse agentism with misunderstanding of the properties of things and how they relate to their original object.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am pretty sure I'm the type that would assume that when the grass moved, it was a predator. I also assume that aliens might be coming to eat me rather than share scientific knowledge and an understanding of the universe. Remember, it isn't paranoia if things are really out to get you. LoL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImaginary patterns can be very helpful to provide reference points on which to build a framework for communication between people and the cohesion of society for the effective management of its affairs. Take for example Astronomy, a branch of Astrology, though I don't myself believe on the other parts of Astrology. It is very useful to have constellations for communication, but scientic astronomers don't actually believe that the constellations are actual representations of the bodies they are named for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that a similar view could be taken of religions, which I think are essentially neither good nor bad, though for most religions, if the people who profess their belief in them actually followed their fundamental teachings, such as love thy god and love thy neighbour, the world would arguably be a better place. I think much of the violence perpetrated in the name of religion is just a part of human nature looking for an excuse for its justification in pursuit of their own selfish ends and the argument about whether or not atheism is worse is just irrelevant.
An arguable benefit of religion, is that it could be looked upon as a form of lightning conductor, substantially protecting societies from the excesses of megalomaniac pedagogues and the easily led.
As a final thought, science and religion are not per se antagonistic, and religious societies have fostered and developed science in a variety of civilisations, though not without hiccups, such as the argument for creationism.
What a great article... and it makes such simple sense of it all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChanting around campfires made great sense for it's time, but I'd like to think that we have Evolved passed that! Every human is a God in thier own image, I choose to wish prudence and happiness for all.
BB
@topkick:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour following post:
>> My friends, you may not believe in The Most High GOD, Jehova/Yahweh, you may deny His existance, you may hate Him, you may reject Him. If you are right and I am wrong then you have lost nothing, BUT if I am right and you are wrong then you have lost spending eternity in heaven, in the presence of Jesus Christ and possibly your relatives (parents, grand parents, your wife/husband and children). Is this a gamble you can afford to take a chance on????? "<<
convinced me that I should believe in Him. I am sorry I was an atheist all this time.
I will now go and kill my neighbour who is a sabbath-breaker. Glory be unto Him!!!
That, my friend, is called Pascal's Wager, and it is easily disprovable with this: what if you're also wrong? What if we atheists are right? What if the Hindus are right? What if the ancient Greeks were right? Could Zeus and his pals be the real Gods? In my opinion, it's a lot easier being an atheist on such matters. However, I have no problem with your beliefs, only when your stricter brothers in faith try to enforce it as law or teach as truth in schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease address the tools of psychology which can be used to dissuade or perpetrate the event of agent association to both real and imagined patterns!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery Nice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery Nice I agree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not necessary to have absolute, definitive, proof that something does not exist in order to conclude it doesn't. By this standard, you also are open to leprachauns, unicorns, fairies, mermaids and alien overlords running the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to having to rely on supernatural beliefs to make us good and ethical is, for me, kinda sad.
This is very interesting and these psychological phenomena are important to recognize. However it is also important to acknowledge that these facts do not mean that it is impossible for small groups of powerful people to conspire to further their personal interests. Indeed this has happened in the past, and it would be fairly naive to assume that all conspiracies are necessarily a figment of our imagination simply because they may be. In fact, many conspiracies have been exposed, even in the USA and even fairly recently. For an example, look no further than the Great Transportation Conspiracy. Look it up online or watch an excellent documentary called "Taken for a Ride".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I consider myself a skeptic, and I certainly don't believe in invisible beings, this article displays one of the traits that I find objectionable about a lot of what I'll call popular skepticisim: its condescending tone. I think it's fair to say that a majority of people do believe in such things. To call it "baloney" may make you feel superior, and to read somebody else calling it "baloney," along with a host of reasons why it's baloney, may reassure you that you are a member of an intellectually elite class, but otherwise it's a dead end. I know people who in all honesty "see" angels, demons, and assorted other invisible beings. I think they "see" them because they believe in them in the first place, and that their brain has projected their beliefs into the outside world, so that they perceive what, to you or me, doesn't exist. But sometimes perception is reality, and for all intents and purposes those things exist, to those people. No laundry list of reasons why they "see" those spirits is going to convince them that the spirits don't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does exist is good, and evil. I believe those come from within us. That those are human concepts makes them no less real, or useful as guidelines for living in a society. So what matters to me is not some list of "Top 10 Reasons Why People Who Believe in Spirits Are Idiots," but a way to find common ground with such people, in discussing our shared beliefs concerning right and wrong.
These others you speak of arrived here long ago and travel forward in time. They do this by traveling so fast. They can not go back in time because it is impossible. The worst of their kind hasn't spent much time here they have traveled from the past making fewer stops. Many of their worst are here now and they are merciless. They care nothing about how much you ask them to stop causing you pain. They like to hurt week things. They spend time enjoying, partaking, or sharing the pride they take in the causing of animals and peoples suffering and pain. They can feel every feeling that you have when they are connected to you. They have spent way too much time in a void obviously and are no longer like animals at all. They must be the strongest ones, nothing can stop their will apparently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics can affect the economy (just look at North Korea) and i've never heard of a kid actually believing the sun follows them around outside of Super Mario Brothers 2. The face is to cheer up an otherwise boring yellow orb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this