Replies to this message

re: 1 Re: What does it mean to believe? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 06/30/2003, 23:10:01 Author Profile Mail author I didn't really follow the last thread so this isn't a response to that debate. Your question is very good I think. What does it mean to really believe and what do people really believe in? It's a question that a lot of people ask including believers, although in their case, usually it's couched more in terms of faith. You hear this casually all the time in the Mormon church, "Oh I know it's all true, but I just lack the faith or motivation to really live it." President Kimball gave a talk called, "catching the vision" where he challenged the saints to move beyond mere belief. But I think taking it from this angle softens the issue a little. The most important thing for Mormons is that "it's all true" should be established fairly easily and from there it's just a matter of implementation--supposidly the harder part. My opinion is that this kind of view overlooks the very strong, perhaps even programmed causality between belief and action. I remember a very good talk, better to the point in my opinion, by a general authority that addresses action more in terms of real belief rather then "faith" or commitment; unfortunately I can't remember the name of either. It went something like; the general authority and his comp were out knocking on doors during a bad rainstorm. A man let them in, they gave him the discussion (the first vision story), and then the two missionaries asked for a ride home or to hang out until the storm was over (can't remember). The man looked at them and said something like, "You don't believe a word of that story you just told me". Of course, the were confused, so he explained further, "If you really believed that this rain wouldn't stop you, nothing would. You would be telling the world morning and night, nothing would stop you." I heard the talk paraphrased just after my mission, and I remember thinking to myself that he's right on the money. I've spent my mission trying to "show my faith" in order to come to a more sure "knowledge" of the message, but in reality, I never really believed it in the first place. Sure, I believed something, but when I had to force myself to get emotional and all sincere every time I told the JS story, and had to sort of mentally shut off when it was criticized, I think that says something. On the other hand, there are examples of things that I have really believed in that are also likely just as false. For instance, back then I was also into free energy psuedo-science, Tom Bearden stuff. I would say that I really did believe it. In fact, I got into a rather lengthy argument about it with a chemist during my mission. I swear to god that I honestly felt sorry for him after our discussion because he would never know or comprehend this fascinating mystical truth that I did! I had never felt that sorry for any investigator who rejected "the gospel". | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: 2 Re: re: 1 -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 06/30/2003, 23:52:56 Author Profile Mail author There are a lot of people who believe in god more then I ever have. No question. But there still is that question, how much do they really believe? When people say they believe this and that, I don't necessarily believe them at all. Not that I think they are lying or delusional. I suppose I'm interested in this thread today because of a conversation I had last night with a very good friend of mine who believes in God and heaven/hell, goes to church every sunday etc. She is a very good and sincere person, and also highly intelligent. We were talking about heaven and hell, and I was asking her to get very specific. We established that hell was eternal, and that it was mental anguish, but that the mental anguish was somehow quantitatively worse then any physical suffering imaginable. We established that both her and I were likely to go there along with possibly her children and the vast majority of the human race. I brought up a conversation we had a few weeks back about a HBO documentary I saw about a hitman who had about 100 marks under his belt. He was of course, anti-social. One of the ways he killed people was to tie them up in a cave and let the rats eat them alive. We agreed that hell is worse then that. My opinion is that in our conversation trying to analyze it, we moved beyond what she really believed. The other option besides frantically proselyting given you really do believe in hell, is severe deprssion. If you somehow came to the real belief that in twenty days you or someone you loved were to be eaten alive my rats, or better, everyone you know virtually, you'd be horrified, depressed and probably kill yourself by day 15. I think to really believe in something like eternal hell, you must be of diminished mental capacity, anti-social or have some other kind of mental disorder--whether it's true or not is irrelevant. No sane person could function daily with the real operating belief that the majority of the earth's population including possibly yourself or loved ones are going to suffer eternally in hell. But the whole message of the cross falls with that really, so what is it that people really believe and are we possibly talking about some kind of general need for security, hope and possibly even some kind of more basic belief in something better then this life? I just think the words, "I believe in God" or "Jesus", or the "mormon church" don't usually end up realling having the referrent that is intended. | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page Hi Ramona: male and female and God Re: What does it mean to believe? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: The Vines ® 07/01/2003, 12:59:25 Author Profile Mail author Hi Ramona: I hope all is well for you, and I hope your heart's desires are realized for your son. Its good to hear from you. Now to trivial things... You pose a question that I too asked myself in the preceding thread: what does belief really mean in this context? Faith manifests itself in various aspects, down to even crossing the street. Without faith many of our everday activities would not occur and we would find ourselves in a constant state of profound anxiety for the many unknown and potential hazards a day's life might provide us. In reality our mind works in ways so as to calculate plausible scenarios and to often favor positive outcomes. I guess we can call it an optimistic risk taking machine. However, faith in a deity is something very specific and involves many aspects of the human psyche that normally would not be engaged in plain "faith-based" behavior - like crossing a busy street. The article you present talks about a group of people that believe. Yes, within groups of believers men usually have more interest in technicalities like doctrine, but if anything this seems to me to be an expression of the difference Martin's stats seemed to evidence. Do men and women just believe differently? Is the discrepancy between genders just a matter of definition of the term belief? Frankly, I don't think so. Belief can have two aspects: 1) feeling; 2) action. As to "action", belief can be seen as a force that induces one to act. The bottom line for the human mind is RESULT. The mind is built in ways that allow for obtaining results - we don't even have to be conscious of the process. For example, a woman loves her husband. Why? The result nature intends is procreation but is that what the woman feels? Does she love her husband because this will cause her to procreate? USUALLY the answer is no(LOL). However, that is how it seems nature has built us. It doesn't matter if the answers we give ourselves in consciousness are objectively reflecting reality. What counts is the result. At times a conscious image that doesn't reflect reality objectively is more useful. Martin presented some time ago a nice post regarding "consciousness as a metaphor" that addressed this idea. In terms of action what does faith produce? What are the results following faith in God? Of course the obvious answer is connected to moral laws, but it is also linked to the general paradigm of the believer. Some argue that women believe more because they look at long term results more than men do. But that is to identify cause and result as one and the same. Its not right. I think a relevant question would be: are there essential forces in the mind for which it is imperative that expression is found? I think it has been demonstrated that there are explosive mental forces, or in other words forces that we are built so that they must be expressed; mental forces that tirelessly push in a specific behavioral and mental direction. The question then becomes: are there mental forces of this kind that find a great vehicle for their expression in religious paradigms and practices? Do these mental foces change between men and women? I think it has been proven that there are many mental forces that fight for the spotlight in consciousness, and also in our behavioral repertoire, conscious or not. I think religions allow for the activation of many of these imperative mental forces. My hunch is that for men and women these forces change and that the way religion allows for the expression of these forces varies and thus the relevance of religion to the minds of male and female changes. One dimension of how these forces manifest themselves consciously is through feelings. What feelings do relgions seem to convey out of the mind? Well ideas can combine a series of feelings together. The effectiveness of a religious idea probably has to do with the relevance of the combination of feelings it is able to evoke. Unavoidably feelings are linked to ideas that evoke them. The results of faith in God are a feeling of security because of the long-term promise of salvation(survival), the feeling of being watched over(survival), the feeling that your life has a purpose(self-definition), the feeling that there is an infinitely loving Father figure out there waiting for you to come home(belonging to a family, pack), the feeling that you are made to be noble in your actions and that you must control yourself so as to live up to your divine heritage(social interaction, the rules of living in communities, fairness, love, respect, etc.), etc... The way religious ideas evoke instinctual responses through their theology is no doubt important, and there is no doubt that the relevance of a religion is determined by the strength of the combination of mental forces it evokes. Do these feelings and the way they are perceived in consciousness change for men and women so as to make the religious paradigm a more or less relevant vehicle of expression? To be explored. Ultimately one can ask: why God? Couldn't an idea be formulated that allowed for the activation of these forces without a God? Does your gender have to do with the answer to this question? Perhaps in essence you are right in the sense that both in men and women these imperative forces find expression one way or another, in fact I would bet on it. The issue is that religion will not be the vehicle for both to the same extent. I think stats indicate that women ARE more religious in the sense that they are MORE LIKELY to adopt religion as a vehicle for the expression of these fundamental mental forces; more than men are at least. But these forces are expressed nonetheless. I believe this is the reason why men believe in a slightly different way too, that is when they do. The forces being expressed are different, and thus the relevance to one aspect of religion over another will mirror that. This however, still does not answer the question: why God? This answer is still shrouded in mystery. It is my opinion that Boyer in his book "Religion Explained" (as mentioned by CC) does hit a lot of things, but overall, the question still eludes us. It is my opinion that God is the cumulative result of MANY mental forces looking for a rational connection one with another. The brain tends to paste things together to make sense of them, a unitary picture. The brain wants a unitary picture not a broken and compartmentalized one. I think Gods are an inevitable conclusion for the brain's peculiar way of functioning. Its sort of like marriage is the inevitable social conclusion for the drive and feelings linked to reproduction in a society. Similarly God is the inevitable conclusion based on MANY MANY mental images and forces. It best unifies and gives meaning to these forces in ways that are acceptable and that preserve their mental relevance. It is my opinion that for men and women the meaning the brain comes up with for these drives may not lead to divinities as much as for women. But I must also specify that I don't know if this is entirely biological either. Some have argued that there is evidence that men and women believed differently also during the middle ages and in the ancient times. If this is true then the social factor is really irrelevant. I don't know if this has been proven, but it wouldn't surpise me. As it stands, I would conclude that men believe less in God then women because religion doesn't provide a vehicle for the expression of imperative mental forces for the two sexes in the same way. It probably allows for it more for women and children then for men. Men find other vehicles to express their strongest mental forces. Ciao TV Modified by The Vines at Tue, Jul 01, 2003, 12:59:54 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: What does it mean to believe? Re: What does it mean to believe? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: Martin ® 07/02/2003, 03:07:01 Author Profile Mail author Ramona, You write: "Martin's posted survey seemed to show that women, based on numbers/percentages, believe more than men do. But what does it mean to believe? Do women have what I would consider a low level belief system, in which they believe in an Almighty, but it is a sidelined non-issue in life?" First of all, that survey -- AND ALL THE OTHERS I'VE POSTED WHICH DO NOTHING BUT REINFORCE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RESULTS OF THAT FIRST-MENTIONED POLL -- concur with all other scientific research findings I've ever been able to find. Why did you ignore all that data? Please don't tell me it was because you were "too busy" as you've claimed, since obviously you weren't so busy that it kept you from writing and posting! Reading is far easier and quicker than writing and posting, as you well know. So please be aware I don't buy your excuse (not that you care, of course). The inescapable conclusion of all the scientifically acquired data I've encountered throughout my adult life -- only a tiny fraction of which I presented here -- is that women are (1) more attracted to religious and paranormal beliefs, (2) they believe them more passionately and deeply and (3) subject them to less critical examination than men. This has little to do with doctrinal flexibility. Indeed, greater doctrinal flexibility while still maintaining the same core beliefs is exactly what I would expect of more women than men, as documented by the much higher number of skeptics, atheists, and agnostics among men (i.e., when men critically examine a basic item of faith, they are more likely to drop it completely if it fails a careful critique; whereas with women, they are more likely to re-interpret it in such a way as it allows them to retain their core belief while quieting their self-critical thoughts. You then ask: "We then have the likes of many great and/or infamous religious figures. There sure are not many females in the list, and certainly none in mine. Why is that?" Historical bigotry, most probably. Just about any list of famous historical figures will feature more men than women for just that reason. You also ask: "When men believe, do they believe more intensely than women even if not in as great of numbers?" The facts prove otherwise. Please carefully read my post: Fascinating Stats! (also proves Ramona wrong) In there, you will find that question answered with alacrity: Women believe much more intensely than do men. - Martin Modified by Martin at Wed, Jul 02, 2003, 03:12:16 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Stats don't mean squat... Re: What does it mean to believe? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: The Vines ® 07/02/2003, 12:08:43 Author Profile Mail author .... on an individual basis. The fact that STATISTICALLY women believe more than men in divinities says NOTHING about individuals. It would not be surprising to find that the strongest believers in the world are men because the stats are mathematical projections that do not address the reality of individuals. The stats may well say that women are stronger believers and yet in reality the strongest believer in the world may be a man. That is just how stats work. They do not address the reality of individuals. TV | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page On Stats and Individuals Re: What does it mean to believe? -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: Martin ® 07/10/2003, 06:07:41 Author Profile Mail author I hope, Ramona, that you would feel as insulted by the condescending post Stats don't mean squat... if it was I who had dared to talk so far down to you instead of Vines! Who would have imagined that you needed educating, as Vines bizarrely thought you needed, that a statistic describing an entire group might not be accurate for any given individual? Can I say, "Duh"? And it is either too obvious to be told, or else it is absolutely NOT true to assert, as Vines did, that "stats are mathematical projections that do not address the reality of individuals". If Vines wasn't merely further condescending to you, he is mistaken. On the contrary, a scientifically established statistic that reports that an attribute applies to say, 85% of a given group, obviously applies to 85% of the individuals in that group! Duh, again! So it is ridiculous to claim, as Vines did, that statistics "do not address the reality of individuals". They most certainly do! They just don't apply to any of the 15% of the individuals in a group for whom the attribute does not apply, of course. Just as everyone who understands the word "statistic" knows perfectly well, the attribute might not apply to any given randomly selected individual, but that certainly doesn't mean that statistics "do not address the reality of individuals"! The fact is, Ramona, that the scientific evidence undeniably demonstrates that more women than men hold somewhat more deeply and profoundly to religious and paranormal beliefs. As for your closing questions, by far the most probable and rational reasons that far many more men appear on such lists as you refer to are (not in any particular order): 1) Women have usually been marginalized or even outright ignored since the dawn of human history, 2) Most of the people on such lists are there not because they were deeper or more passionate believers but rather because they were nearly the only humans who received advanced educations during almost all of human history and thus they were nearly the only humans to be able to write influential books on religious (or other) issues, 3) In most of human history, women were not permitted to join the intellectual religious orders of men and thus were not permitted into the more rarified atmosphere of theological discourse necessary to refine their ideas, 4) Men are generally more concerned with vanquishing or at least winning over unbelievers in their theological ideas than women, who are more likely to simply believe and let others worry about making others believe. There are probably more sociological and psychological reasons than these, of course. There's simply no reason to believe that more men than women are believers or that men believe more profoundly than women, especially not on the grounds of the gender bias of such lists! - Martin | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page