Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

[Mriana]

Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

 

ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2009) — Religious people tend to use their own beliefs as a guide in thinking about what God believes, but are less constrained when reasoning about other people's beliefs, according to new study published in the Nov. 30 early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God's standards. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing," they conclude. "This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

 

Very interesting. Explains a lot about some people.

[Ouroboros]

Very interesting. It does explains a lot.

[REBOOT]

Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

 

ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2009) — Religious people tend to use their own beliefs as a guide in thinking about what God believes, but are less constrained when reasoning about other people's beliefs, according to new study published in the Nov. 30 early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God's standards. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing," they conclude. "This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

 

Very interesting. Explains a lot about some people.

 

LOL This is ultimate proof that atheists and ignostics take full responsibility for their actions, are usually balanced and mature individuals

 

The God belief magic cane can't come in to defend egocentric needs or preferences

[mwc]

Very interesting. Explains a lot about some people.

This seems similar to something I posted that showed that the "self" part of the brain lit up when people had to speak on behalf of "god" as it were. The same exact portions of the brain that were active when speaking for themselves. But when they had to speak for another actual person a different part of the brain became active altogether.

 

This seems to be a nice addition to that.

 

It does, however, seem to confirm that for most people their god is located somewhere up their own ass.

 

mwc

[qec]

Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

 

ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2009) — Religious people tend to use their own beliefs as a guide in thinking about what God believes, but are less constrained when reasoning about other people's beliefs, according to new study published in the Nov. 30 early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God's standards. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing," they conclude. "This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

 

Very interesting. Explains a lot about some people.

 

Not surprising, "God" is a political power play on the part of moralizing individuals who believe in it. So when they tell you about what "God" wants on a moral level, they are really telling you about what they want on a moral level, while hoping for political submission to their will which political will ties into their greater "God" collective on a social level. It's all politics and conditioning, and religion is a form of government-at least in most secular societies, with Government being a form of Religion in Communist societies and Theocracies.

[Neon Genesis]

Did the study say anything about Christians' brains when they disagreed with God? Like when Christians pray to God for that job they really wanted and God doesn't give it to them or if a Christian's favorite politician doesn't get elected after they prayed to God for it.

[Mriana]

Not that I recall, but I bet you their brain get all scrambled.

[godlessgrrl]

I've always had a hunch this was true. It just seems so convenient that a believer's idea of what god thinks and wants always seems to match up with their own, and that a person's image of god looks an awful lot like a much more powerful version of themselves. If they're bigoted and violent, so it their god; if they're honest and compassionate, so is their god. And of course nobody can ever agree on what god is really like and what his "true" nature is... it just always seemed a little fishy to me.

 

I'll also admit that I find it not just a little ironic that Xians often accuse atheists of putting ourselves in god's place and somehow making ourselves into god, and yet they're the ones running around telling everybody what god thinks and wants and likes and so on.

 

Sounds to me like it's Xians that put themselves in god's place, not atheists.

[Shyone]

 

I'll also admit that I find it not just a little ironic that Xians often accuse atheists of putting ourselves in god's place and somehow making ourselves into god, and yet they're the ones running around telling everybody what god thinks and wants and likes and so on.

 

Sounds to me like it's Xians that put themselves in god's place, not atheists.

Exactly. One has to believe in god to put ones self in gods place. For me, there is no god, and no place for god.

[Franko47]

It's interesting. Going back, when I was a practicing Christian, I remember telling a group of fellow christians (we were on a picnic thing) that the reason I came to Jesus was mainly because "I agreed with him".

 

You wouldn't have believed the looks. The double-takes. Me ? "Agreeing" ? As thought that were important ? After all, we are supposed to "obey", not "agree".

 

But I continued on, and said that most of what Jesus talks about on Sermon On the Mount was basically just good, sound, spiritualism. I mean, you don't really need organized religion or churches after that. Mercy, love one another, go by the spiritual intuition that God has put in each of us.....

 

That didn't go over to well, for some funny reason. I sensed a little begrudgement, and was even accused of being a little irreverent. On the way back, a younger guy asked me what I would do if I discovered that I "disagreed" with God on judgement day.

 

"I dunno; if he turned out to be immoral and unfair according to my spiritual inclinations, then I would know that he was some kind of imposter". Everyone in the car gasped.

 

I think that was the beginning of where I realized it was all breaking down. A great many people want to believe that "God" is all about their own inclinations. They just ignore the contradictions, and the horrors of what God has done (or not done) to people.

 

"The Lord works in mysterious ways". Ah, that wonderful baby bottle formula that solves all contradictions and problems.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?

[qec]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right?

 

Abstract:

 

When thinking on "God", the same part of the brain is triggered: the part involved in self-identity and thoughts about self. Atheist's call it self. You call it God.

 

The part of the brain that is triggered when one things of other entities is not triggered.

 

"God" is a projection of the ego for various psychological reasons.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Phanta

 

I think this division of the mind occurs as a result of a refined dualism: supernatural vs natural. In a monist (Naturalist) approach you only have one mind and one ego; no division of the two occurs. When someone tells you what God requires on a moral level, they are in effect merely telling you what they require and whatever social construct they belong to requires, on a moral level.

 

The funny thing about moral judgment though, is that the less you engage in it the more peace you find, but the less problems get solved, and then on the other end the more you engage in it the less peace you find, but the chances of significant problems being solved increases. What I have found to be true is that those who are most altruistic, are engaging in more moral judgment, but this isn't to say they find less peace necessarily as they could have their Bio-Psycho-Social cards stacked up nice and neat, thus mitigating damage to their psyche. The ones who are the opposite of this are usually not really concerned with moral questions, but I think oddly, that this brings more peace in all circumstances and I don't know why this is.

 

 

Admittedly I am missing major stuff here. But these are my thoughts on the matter. I will say that I do tend to be very suspicious of outright altruism, as great evil has been done in it's name. What I have found is that altruism that proceeds from self interest is far more balanced rather than, say, one just proceeding mainly from self interest in human interactions, or mainly altruism in human interactions. On the one hand the totally self interested are total assholes-somehow I manage to be an asshole without actually being all that self interested, and it's not funny- and the totally altruistic manage to be the same thing (total assholes), AND be doormats at the same time.

 

Sigh, dunno where the answers lie, but what I have seen of religion gives me cause to think that, while it does a great amount of good, the great amount of evil overwhelms the good. Probably on the order of 70/30 or something like this, but admittedly this is gut feeling. I think the main problem with God and religion is that the greatest transgressions come from their very creeds; so the harder they try the bigger the hypocrites they become. It's sad really, but I honestly think that most evil can be said to come from them merely transgressing their own code. But then if you try to refine the code in a simplistic manner (like in small sects/sociological cults), things become exceedingly judgmental, cruel, and sadistic.

 

It's a hard world out there, /me goes back in his hole.

[Neon Genesis]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?

Yes, because atheists are not claiming some other being that nobody knows if they exists and has never met agrees with them on everything.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right? Or is that something that even comes up in discussion?

Yes, because atheists are not claiming some other being that nobody knows if they exists and has never met agrees with them on everything.

 

But that isn't EGO centric. We are saying that a being outside of ourselves and higher sets the rules. Atheist say I set the rules. Thatis FAR FAR more dangerous and ego centric.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

Is this any different than atheist who set their moral compass on what they believe is right?

 

Abstract:

 

When thinking on "God", the same part of the brain is triggered: the part involved in self-identity and thoughts about self. Atheist's call it self. You call it God.

 

The part of the brain that is triggered when one things of other entities is not triggered.

 

"God" is a projection of the ego for various psychological reasons.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Phanta

 

But that still doesn't change the basic premise which is God is outside and better than I am,and God sets the rules and morals. Whereas the atheist makes his own rules based on what he/she believes is right/wrong. That is ego centric.

[Astreja]

But that still doesn't change the basic premise which is God is outside and better than I am,and God sets the rules and morals. Whereas the atheist makes his own rules based on what he/she believes is right/wrong. That is ego centric.

I think you've got it backwards, FD619.

 

Moral standards evolve within communities, and unless one member of that community possesses an inordinate amount of power he can not force his will on the rest of the tribe.

 

Your "God-given morals" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based upon the will of one such entity. I'd say it's Biblegod who's the egotist here.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

But that still doesn't change the basic premise which is God is outside and better than I am,and God sets the rules and morals. Whereas the atheist makes his own rules based on what he/she believes is right/wrong. That is ego centric.

I think you've got it backwards, FD619.

 

Moral standards evolve within communities, and unless one member of that community possesses an inordinate amount of power he can not force his will on the rest of the tribe.

 

Your "God-given morals" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based upon the will of one such entity. I'd say it's Biblegod who's the egotist here.

 

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda? And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

 

The will of the creator of all things, I'd say in that regard God kinda has the right to make the rules.

[Astreja]

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda?

I call Godwin's Law.

 

And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

There is some truth in this. In primitive communities, such as those described in the Bible, the people are actually encouraged to annihilate neighbouring tribes but abduct the virgin women. Communities that grow beyond this are far more stable.

 

The will of the creator of all things, I'd say in that regard God kinda has the right to make the rules.

So in essence, your version of morality boils down to "might makes right"? I don't see that as an improvement over what we've got.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I would say that it is similar to what an atheist uses to determine morality in that it is all in your/our heads. Theists have god and self intertwined, atheists just have self. Its all the same thing in the end.

Thinking about what God thinks is right is thinking about what YOU think is right. Or others of us just think about what is right. Its all subjective to our own thoughts and our own brains. That is the point of all of this in my opinion.

[Ouroboros]

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda?

And somehow they lost. Which means that the even larger community corrected the smaller community. Besides, Hitler used political power and manipulation to force his views on the people. There are plenty of studies in the area of how pressure through propaganda and authoritarian force changes people's views. Take a class in Psychology or Sociology and you'll read all about it.

 

And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

Murder was okay in the Old Testament, if God commanded it.

 

And rape was not condemned in the Old Testament.

 

Neither was slavery.

 

Laws against rape and slavery came about in modern time under the influence of secular philosophy.

 

The will of the creator of all things, I'd say in that regard God kinda has the right to make the rules.

So how do you know what the Creator wants? How do you know what the Creator currently declares as moral or not? If his laws are absolute and unchanging, why have our moral codes changed? Why didn't God reveal them absolutely, definitely, and clearly 2500 years ago?

 

Another thing, the interpretation of the Bible has changed too. Which means the understanding of what is right and wrong has changed--even when it is based on the Bible.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

But that isn't EGO centric. We are saying that a being outside of ourselves and higher sets the rules. Atheist say I set the rules. Thatis FAR FAR more dangerous and ego centric.

Which do you think sounds more egocentric? To believe that morals are the products of natural laws that we discover on our own through our life experiences or to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe coincidentally happens to agree with everything you think is moral? Don't you find it a little bit suspicious that God always agrees with your moral beliefs?

 

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda? And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

Yeah, and Hitler was a Catholic who claimed the Jews were "Christ-killers" and Jesus was a fighter who was on his side. Funny how you claim God is on your side and agrees with everything you say is moral but Hitler also claimed God was on his side.

[ContraBardus]

FD, put in simple terms, this study is clear evidence that when a Christian thinks about what God wants, or what God's opinion about something is, they aren't really thinking about 'God's' wants or 'God's' opinions, but their own.

 

Therefore, people who say 'God hates Fags' are really saying 'I hate Fags'.

 

Or when someone says 'God told me' they are really saying 'I thought it up myself and am using God to justify my opinion or decision'.

 

Basically, this study shows that Christians really just use 'God' to justify their own views and opinions, without any influence of any actual God coming into the picture.

 

You might not agree with that, but that's what the evidence in this study shows.

 

Again, Evidence > Faith.

 

Personal beliefs do not change facts or alter reality. You can claim it's 'God' all you want, but the evidence shown here clearly indicates that it's not 'God' at all, but just you talking to yourself and using the concept of 'God' to justify the views and opinions you already have.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda?

I call Godwin's Law.

 

And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

There is some truth in this. In primitive communities, such as those described in the Bible, the people are actually encouraged to annihilate neighbouring tribes but abduct the virgin women. Communities that grow beyond this are far more stable.

 

The will of the creator of all things, I'd say in that regard God kinda has the right to make the rules.

So in essence, your version of morality boils down to "might makes right"? I don't see that as an improvement over what we've got.

 

1. Who's law were people following before Godwin?

 

2. But for what reason? was it because they felt it was right or because God told them to?

 

3. NO that is your idea. You said the majority decides the rules. In essence might makes right. 99% of the people can vote to enslave the 1%

[Guest FaithDefender619]

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda?

 

Or like the way a particular Christian sect's doctrine is determined. The majority of elders, or a critical mass of congregants, decide what is true. Majority rules.

 

And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

 

Yes, just like in the Bible.

 

The will of the creator of all things, I'd say in that regard God kinda has the right to make the rules.

 

Who bestows upon the creator that right? Is it power that determines the right? Might equals right? God is mighty, so God is right.

 

Phanta

 

1. But that isn't even biblical teaching. God decides the rules not elders, Vatican officials or anything like that. The 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus (which never provide for killing, or harming others)is the law of the land.

 

2. When God tells you to kill it is because His judgement calls for it. Now also this is God audibly telling the nation of Israel to do something. Because I know people will pop out with the "well GW Bush said that going to war was ok cause God said so".

 

3. He's the creator He is given that right when He created everything. Gods vast superiority makes it right. His vast knowledge, wisdom, power et al provides God the right and divine perogative to set what is right and wrong.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

 

 

But that isn't EGO centric. We are saying that a being outside of ourselves and higher sets the rules. Atheist say I set the rules. Thatis FAR FAR more dangerous and ego centric.

Which do you think sounds more egocentric? To believe that morals are the products of natural laws that we discover on our own through our life experiences or to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe coincidentally happens to agree with everything you think is moral? Don't you find it a little bit suspicious that God always agrees with your moral beliefs?

 

So basically majority rules. Like in Nazi germany when the community agreed with killing massive amounts of people to advance the nazi superman agenda? And moral standards evolve? So murder and rape could at one moment be ok and then wrong the next?

Yeah, and Hitler was a Catholic who claimed the Jews were "Christ-killers" and Jesus was a fighter who was on his side. Funny how you claim God is on your side and agrees with everything you say is moral but Hitler also claimed God was on his side.

 

1. Moral laws are products of natural laws? Where in nature do you see killing being wrong? Where in nature do you see canibalism is wrong? If we lived by the laws of nature and what we see in nature this world would be pretty messed up to say the least. The atheist has NO absolute standard for morality so therefore they essentially get their morality from themselves. Which is ego centric making themselves their own standard of right and wrong as if they are wise enough to know that. I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong. And as an atheist my natural self believed that sex outside of marriage was fine, abortion was fine and pretty much what I felt was ok (situational morals/ethics) was perfectly fine.

 

2. Hitler was also an occultist. I suggest you look into why hitler even used symbols like the sig rune and the swastika, why people like Gerbles (who was a mystic) were on his staff and why he consulted astrologers to help him plot his military campaigns. And groups like the SS and their initiation rites. Also you should look into Hitlers historical society the Annenurbe and their trips to Tibet, the whole basis of Aryanism (Russian mystic Madame HP Blavatsky), Theosophy (which is at the heart of the New Age Movement today). I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus. If you want there is a movie on youtube called the occult roots of the 3rd Reich. Oh yes and the group Hitler was in called the Thule (or Tooley) society. The man was demonic to the toe nails.