Faith vs. Facts

Apr 28, 2015

Image credit: Adam Maida

By T. M. Luhrmann

Most of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes. “But those are the facts,” you want to say. “It seems weird to deny them.”

And yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set. Even what they count as evidence is different. And they are motivated differently, based on what they conclude. On what grounds do scholars make such claims?

First of all, they have noticed that the very language people use changes when they talk about religious beings, and the changes mean that they think about their realness differently. You do not say, “I believe that my dog is alive.” The fact is so obvious it is not worth stating. You simply talk in ways that presume the dog’s aliveness — you say she’s adorable or hungry or in need of a walk. But to say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is alive” signals that you know that other people might not think so. It also asserts reverence and piety. We seem to regard religious beliefs and factual beliefs with what the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls different “cognitive attitudes.”

Second, these scholars have remarked that when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. We evaluate factual beliefs often with perceptual evidence. If I believe that the dog is in the study but I find her in the kitchen, I change my belief. We evaluate religious beliefs more with our sense of destiny, purpose and the way we think the world should be. One study found that over 70 percent of people who left a religious cult did so because of a conflict of values. They did not complain that the leader’s views were mistaken. They believed that he was a bad person.

Third, these scholars have found that religious and factual beliefs play different roles in interpreting the same events. Religious beliefs explain why, rather than how. People who understand readily that diseases are caused by natural processes might still attribute sickness at a particular time to demons, or healing to an act of God. The psychologist Cristine H. Legare and her colleagues recently demonstrated that people use both natural and supernatural explanations in this interdependent way across many cultures. They tell a story, as recounted by Tracy Kidder’s book on the anthropologist and physician Paul Farmer, about a woman who had taken her tuberculosis medication and been cured — and who then told Dr. Farmer that she was going to get back at the person who had used sorcery to make her ill. “But if you believe that,” he cried, “why did you take your medicines?” In response to the great doctor she replied, in essence, “Honey, are you incapable of complexity?”


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

32 comments on “Faith vs. Facts

  • MOST of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes. “But those are the facts,” you want to say. “It seems weird to deny them.”

    I don’t find it mind boggling. I find it common and banal like evil.

    And yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set. Even what they count as evidence is different. And they are motivated differently, based on what they conclude. On what grounds do scholars make such claims?

    The evidence of religious self delusion. Homo Sapiens are capable, probably for good evolutionary reasons, to self delude in certain circumstances. This wouldn’t matter if there were no consequences. But there are. The religious delusion is the root of all evil. Selfish scientific delusions like denying global warming may be genocidal and lead to a mass extinction event. Maybe we need Monsanto to develop something to seed in the clouds that turns off this delusional gene. (Said in desperation and not to be taken as a solution.)

    It’s the young kids who seem skeptical when researchers ask them about gods and ancestors, and the adults who seem clear and firm. It seems that supernatural ideas do things for adults they do not yet do for children.

    Teaching children religion is psychological abuse. This has been discuss ad infinitum in these forums but another matchstick of evidence to put on the pile. Religion should be practiced by consenting adults ONLY, in private.



    Report abuse

  • “Religion should be practiced by consenting adults ONLY, in private.”

    If children don’t get infected with religion, why would adults?

    This sparked me off thinking… what if somehow you had a society without religion. Let’s say we sent a bunch of atheist scientists and engineers to found a new colony on a planet round Alpha Centauri.

    Would religion appear in the next generation, or the next generation after that? Is no-religion a stable state for mankind? It would only take one 2nd generation kid to read up on a religion (as history), and out of sheer bloody mindedness and the usual do-what-parents-said-not-to rebellion they might start spouting the nonsense … and it would have the opportunity to infect younger minds.

    Or would the “think for your self” philosophy the scientists/engineers (hopefully) teach their young be sufficient inoculation?



    Report abuse

  • Would religion appear in the next generation, or the next generation after that?

    Sadly yes English Gent. While religion is not innate in Homo Sapiens, we have a multitude of other valuable evolutionary traits that do create religions. There is a very good video that explores all of these evolutionary traits and cross links them to causes of religion in our species.

    David R Allen Apr 27, 2015 at 4:57 am
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/being-an-atheist-isnt-bad-for-your-mental-health-new-study-says/

    If you’ve got time, then I think the answer to your questions would be yes, religions would be created. They’re being created today and in recent history. Mormons. Scientology. Cargo cults in Melanesia. All well documented. All carry the same features explained in the video.

    God’s joke in creating us. Makes us intelligent and capable of tremendous intellectual feats, but infect us with a propensity for self delusion. Nice one god.



    Report abuse

  • We ignore the fact that religious people have been assaulted, much as they would have been had they been kidnapped by the SLA and forced to believe something bizarre with threats and violence. It is no wonder they exhibit signs of that damage. It is so common we consider it a right to treat children this way.

    Perhaps study of PTSD might be a starting place.



    Report abuse

  • On the other hand, it’s been shown that the two belief types are indistinguishable in terms of what parts of the brain believing in them activates. Actually, there is one difference worth mentioning. Beliefs about one’s own opinions activate one set of circuits; beliefs about other people’s opinions activate another. Interestingly, beliefs about God’s opinions activate the first set, implying theists are consulting themselves on what God thinks. That might explain why they never admit to any disagreements with Him.



    Report abuse

  • There is a tendency to be consoled by the produce of reason, but that may be nearly as delusional as religiosity. To quote Camus, “To the absurd mind, reason is useless and reason is everything.” A very religious and seemingly happy and charitable woman in our neighborhood committed suicide a couple of days ago, and the most fervent question in our community is “Why did she do it?” Doubtless, many will discover potential motives, when in fact they might be better served to simply mourn her loss.



    Report abuse

  • Yes, indeed. Sexual abuse is one of the forms of psychological abuse. Think how many people suffer from sexual dysfunction due to the fairy tale of Adam and Eve and the “original sin.”



    Report abuse

  • I think the answer is that humans do not rely on reason for most of their core beliefs . There is evolutionary advantage in believing the most repeated and reasonable sounding explanation for phenomena that they are exposed to from local society and media. Theres a clue in how easy it is to brain wash or hypnotise people which can be considered as changing belief by simply by repeating pseudo facts with little or no need for rational explanation or presentation of genuine facts or research.



    Report abuse

  • T. M. Luhrmann: JERUSALEM — MOST of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes. “But those are the facts,” you want to say. “It seems weird to deny them.”
    And yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.

    Ms. Luhrmann adresses matters of fact from the question-begging premise of the way “people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than a religious mind-set.” Of course we get the drift, but she should qualify her use of the term “facts” in reference to simple empirical observations from which humans form beliefs that generate practices beneficial to human health. Grammatically she presents a tautological argument where the predicate is contained in the subject by logical definition. “The fact that blood transfusions save lives has been inductively verified by the factual mind-set.” It’s a fact because it’s a fact under a certain definition. The Jehovah’s witness religious mind-set refuses blood transfusions on “scriptural authority” without considering evidence for or placing value on the life-saving consequences of the procedure. From the consensus view, the Jehovah’s witness belief is wrong and immoral. Why bicker? Here’s why.

    The qualities cited to distinguish the factual mind-set from the religious mind-set often merge and interact when we are required to make inputs on various complex political and social issues. The dualism prompts people to privilege their own views embedded in personal interests and agendas as addressing “the fact of the matter.” Consider the problematic substance of the following statements.

    As a matter of fact, you are over-payed and your income/business should be taxed at a minimum 50% rate with the proceeds distributed to lower income workers.

    As a matter of fact, his lecture was filled with misogynist microagressions undetected by the untrained ear but clearly discerned by the educated feminist.

    As a matter of fact, the new government regulations place an unnecessary burden on businesses that must pass on additional costs incurred by compliance to consumers.



    Report abuse

  • Unfortunately there are two genetically endowed characteristics that cause people to become religious. First is the capacity for purposeful behavior. We can remember something that we became aware of, say for example April 17, 1997, and we then plan a future activity based on that awareness, say about 6 months from now. That capacity for purposeful behavior has a huge selective advantage in the evolution of our species. However, it also has the effect of us being fearful of what occurs after death. Fear of death drive us to become religious and believe without any evidence that there is a heaven and a hell nonsense, while imagining what will happen to us after we die. . And guess who tells us how to live without “sin.”

    The second genetically based behavior is conformity. This behavior also has a huge selective value. By conforming we can carefully learn the use of tools (e.g.: computers) and how to speak. The pleiotropic downside is the conforming to group think and believe in gods or demons as others do under the leadership of some charismatic pulpit pounder.



    Report abuse

  • I believe there is a term “Confirmation Bias” – i.e. we interpret evidence to support our our prior beliefs, and, if all else fails, we ignore contradictory evidence .



    Report abuse

  • Melvin
    Apr 29, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    The qualities cited to distinguish the factual mind-set from the religious mind-set often merge and interact when we are required to make inputs on various complex political and social issues.

    Indeed! The inability to distinguish fact from opinion, or evidenced expert opinion from casual notions, seems to be a major problem.

    The dualism prompts people to privilege their own views embedded in personal interests and agendas as addressing “the fact of the matter.” Consider the problematic substance of the following statements.

    As a matter of fact, you are over-payed and your income/business should be taxed at a minimum 50% rate with the proceeds distributed to lower income workers.

    As a matter of fact, his lecture was filled with misogynist microagressions undetected by the untrained ear but clearly discerned by the educated feminist.

    As a matter of fact, the new government regulations place an unnecessary burden on businesses that must pass on additional costs incurred by compliance to consumers.

    The problematic substance of these statements, is that these bear no relationship to “facts”, and are just personal opinions on vaguely defined subjects, with the “fact” label asserted, as a fallacious authority claim.

    T. M. Luhrmann: – MOST of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care

    These have a much stronger case for being regarded as “facts”, as they are heavily evidenced, independently confirmed, science.



    Report abuse

  • hardy
    Apr 29, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    I think the answer is that humans do not rely on reason for most of their core beliefs .

    It is important to distinguish beliefs in customs which are simply conventions which make for effective communication, co-operation and efficient teamwork in populations, and interactions with the physical environment which are not going to change to suit human wishes.
    These are distinctions which science-denying fundamentalists try to blur, to pretend that their rituals/dogmas, are “fundamental truths”, rather than the arbitrary conventions of their cults.

    There is evolutionary advantage in believing the most repeated and reasonable sounding explanation for phenomena that they are exposed to from local society and media.

    Nobody is going to live long enough, or have the facilities to research everything from scratch, so we inevitably pick up much from apparently successful role models – with the attendant risks of copying flawed examples.



    Report abuse

  • There is evolutionary advantage in believing the most repeated and reasonable sounding explanation for phenomena that they are exposed to from local society and media

    I think this is to partially misunderstand the power our culture provides us in out competing other species. We exploit just about every niche available on land, from the coldest to the hottest etc. etc. We do this because we are able to train our kids in very detailed and reliable ways and in the blink of a generation. When moving to a new location we can quickly respond culturally by passing on the news that the green squishy ones are poisonous. (Only when they are teens do they try the green squishy ones and risk death….even now accidental deaths peak in teens years).

    A more sophisticated picture is that cultures have the capacity to turn on a dime if they need to and that that is their evolutionary trick and that cultural discovery may flow from risk taking teens (brains in the second phase of re-wiring to achieve a degree of individuation). And finally that our unique early period of trainability (of taking the teaching of authority figures on trust and often against reason) is also exploitable in more stable times by various parasitic others.



    Report abuse

  • T. M. Luhrmann: – MOST of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care

    These have a much stronger case for being regarded as “facts”, as they are heavily evidenced, independently confirmed, science.

    The term “fact” is another way of saying “empirical observation that qualifies for widespread inter-subjective agreement.” We have no problem using the term across a range of common objective designations and simple consensus observations. For example: the cat is on the mat. The term “fact” becomes problematic when we adopt the unhelpful definition of “describing an essential truth about complex phenomena independent of relational properties.” Nothing is viewed “independently” apart from a situated point of view. The view from nowhere. Simply put we always require people to tell each other what is “true” about the world from their perspective -what they believe counts as evidence amounting to justification.

    To be fair, Ms. Luhrman confines her comments largely to simple observations that enjoy widespread consensus in contrast with “mind-boggling weirdo religious beliefs.” She does fail to acknowledge the considerable complexity of climate change, vaccines, and health care often denied on non-religious pseudo-scientific grounds. To the extent she sticks to “vegetable truths” versus religious nonsense, the article works well enough without saying anything remarkable.

    She gets into trouble when she starts dividing the mind into a religious mind-set and a factual mind-set. Framing how the mind works within this contrived dichotomy, she implies that controversial emotionally-charged issues involving divergent interest groups and points of view can be resolved by the part of the brain that contains the factual mind-set. The brain functions holistically-not compartmentally- when dealing with complexity.

    Like all of us Ms. Luhrmann succumbs to defintional drift in the dangerous extrapolation of the term “fact” to other topics of discourse. Her well-intentioned adoption of suggestions for resolving the issues of abortion and a divided Jerusalem are screwy. Remember how hot under the collar we became discussing “The Gluten Lie?” Try as we did, no one could summon the fact of the matter offering resolution.



    Report abuse

  • A young son asked his father , “Dad, what will it be like when we are dead ?” The father thought for a while, then replied,”Son, do you remember what it was like before you were born ?” Son said “No.” Father replied, “Well ,it’ll be just like that.”



    Report abuse

  • @OP – Most of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes.

    Here is a prime example of the delusional muppet club appointing a delusional muppet to advise and direct them!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32639813

    A top Australian government business adviser has said climate change is a hoax by the United Nations.

    Most climate models were wrong and there was little evidence of climate change, said Maurice Newman.

    He said the UN had used climate change as a “hook” to establish and control a new world order.

    Mr Newman’s comments were rejected by climate scientists, while Environment Minister Greg Hunt said it was “not something I would express”.

    Coalition governments in Australia have a history of climate change scepticism. One of the current government’s first actions when it won power in 2013 was to dump the previous Labor government’s tax on carbon emissions because of the cost to industry.

    The UN says there is a strong scientific consensus that the global climate is changing and that human activity contributes significantly to this trend.

    .Mr Newman chairs Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council and is a former chairperson of the Australian Stock Exchange.

    He wrote in an opinion article for The Australian newspaper on Friday: “It’s a well-kept secret, but 95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

    Mr Newman said the public had been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”, and swallowed “dud predictions” from weather bureaus who presented “homogenised” data to suit narratives.

    He also said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reviews and assesses scientific work relevant to climate change for the UN, had been exposed “repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods”.

    The UN, he said, was spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on “futile climate change policies”.

    “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” he said. “Global warming is the hook.”

    Mr Newman, who is also a former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said the executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, was using climate change to oppose capitalism.

    “This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

    Ms Figueres was in Australia this week and addressed a climate ­summit in Melbourne on Wednesday.

    .Climate change expert Professor David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, said Mr Newman’s comments did not represent any peer reviewed study or assessment of climate change.

    “It is clear he has deliberately tried to mislead the Australian public,” said Professor Karoly, who is considering making a complaint to the Australian Press Council about the article.

    .He said the government’s decision to appoint Mr Newman to its business advisory council was akin to Qantas having a chairman that believed the earth was flat.

    The carbon industry denial and Dunning-Kruger confidence, is strong in Newman!!!



    Report abuse

  • 20
    Not So Great says:

    FAITH VS FACTS is a Living Proof of Someone’s Stupidity who thinks his science (which is Not the Real Science for making such a conclusion) has discovered some answers that can suppress religion forever.

    The actual phenomena is that in the Nature there is observable Evolution as well as observable Revolution, both by means of Natural Selection. Up to the date, No solid proof at any cost that pointing to “No Great Mind” behind the Natural Selection. That’s for sure and undeniably Right.

    The Evolution of Languages & the Evolution of Religions played a Vital Role in the Main Evolution by means of Natural Selection. Both Evolution of Religions and Languages have made all of us Human Being. Both made human to create “First Tool” for cutting ever growing Hair and finger Nail after an Enlightenment that Without “Stopping” the Growth of Human Hair and finger Nail, there is NO chance at all for “human” to be Human at any cost. That’s for Sure and Undeniably Right.

    FAITH VS FACTS is also a Living Proof of someone’s Stupidity who unintentionally proved that his Science is FAITH Based Theory like any other Religious Faith based Theory of Science.

    The Painful Truth is that we have more to discover once we’ve made a discovery .



    Report abuse

  • FAITH VS FACTS is also a Living Proof of someone’s Stupidity who unintentionally proved that his Science is FAITH Based Theory like any other Religious Faith based Theory of Science.

    Well no actually. Faith it a belief in something in the absence of evidence, or contrary to the evidence. Science is supported by publicly available evidence. Evidence that everyone can see, but it is denied by people of faith, because it contradicts their view.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Not So Great says:

    Do you mean Faith in Religion ? if you do..

    Now, give me an example of an Evidence that everyone can see, but it is denied by people with Faith…



    Report abuse

  • 23
    Not So Great says:

    Do you mean Faith in Religion ? if you do.

    Now, give me an example of an Evidence that everyone can see, but it is denied by people with Faith…



    Report abuse

  • Not So Great
    May 9, 2015 at 3:11 am

    Now, give me an example of an Evidence that everyone can see, but it is denied by people with Faith…

    Have look at my earlier comment on CO2 induced Global warming.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/faith-vs-facts/#li-comment-177475

    Young Earth denial of radiometric dating, geology and evolution are examples of blind faith!

    Faith – belief without evidence or proof

    Science – a methodology based on evidence based reasoning, objective repeat experimental testing, and review and evaluation by expert peers, which has given us the most reliable available information on the natural world.



    Report abuse

  • 26
    Not So Great says:

    Nothing wrong for you pretend to be Smart..even the writer of the book titled FAITH VS FACTS pretends to be one.

    You seem to know next to Nothing about the Evolution of Religions and Languages. For your info: No denial of Wisdom teeth existence by any known religious community. No religious record pointed out the Denial. In fact, historical evidence shows that the Religious Elders of earlier human communities has been observing the late existence of the teeth, and associated it with the young adult growing to be Wiser, they even name it “WISDOM” teeth .

    What makes you say the Wisdom Teeth is an Evidence denied by people with Faith in Religion ????



    Report abuse

  • 27
    Not So Great says:

    The Young Earth denial is merely an Opinion as they claimed to be derived from their understanding of their religion. If you read their reference personally, I encourage you to do so, read the Bible yourself, there is NO statement denying of radiometric dating, geology and evolution. If you find one, give me the statement in the Bible that deny all those scientific methodology. I challenge you.

    Basically, the Bible is a Result of Evolution of Languages & Religions that later put human in need of creating images to represent sounds and recording the experience with the all the “Enlightened Ones” by means of Natural Selection who were given birth by the females through out history in their community, who were the contributor for their people “Survival of the Fittest” that produced offspring that continue to carry the “Reminder” of the Natural Orders of Human Species.

    Bible is Not a book of any Scientific knowledge, It is the Book of Re-introduction of God ( that believed to be the one who made the decision and put every single thing into existence), re-introduced through the “The Enlightened Ones” or Messengers. Even the Bible Not the final, because human tends to go away from the True original Introduction of the God, due to the “Evil nature” of Human mind that carried away by materialistic World.

    Through out the Evolution of Languages and Religions, the Muslim Holy Book Qur’an was seen to fulfill the work of a “Reminder”, the Muslim claimed that over time the Bible has been interpreted by the community wrongly, and that made the same God choose a new Messenger out of other community (Pagan Arab) to remind the World about the God of their own community’s true teaching, strictly Not to associate the One and Only God with anything else in their appreciation for existence and worship.



    Report abuse

  • Not So Great
    M>ay 9, 2015 at 6:27 am

    The Young Earth denial is merely an Opinion as they claimed to be derived from their understanding of their religion.

    You and I may recognise that their views are only ignorant opinion, but to the YEC Biblical literalists it is fact which must have concocted arguments to prop up their views.

    If you read their reference personally, I encourage you to do so,

    Their references are diverse and contradictory, consisting mainly of whimsical assertions, plus incompetent denials of science and history.

    read the Bible yourself, there is NO statement denying of radiometric dating, geology and evolution.

    Unsurprisingly, there are no references to these topics in the bronze-age texts of “the bible” (in its numerous versions and mistranslations) But there are absolutely clear denials of this science both in modern YEC literature and in historical Xtian pronouncements (Such as Vactican I. – 9 and 10.)

    If you find one, give me the statement in the Bible that deny all those scientific methodology. I challenge you.

    That is just silly! We know the bronze-age writers were ignorant of such subjects. (For traditional Xtian denials of scientific methodology google Vatican I)

    Basically, the Bible is a Result of Evolution of Languages & Religions

    It is, – and is also the result of folk stories, being copied and adapted over the centuries, with the 4 NT gospels being cherry-picked from a greater selection of conflicting stories in the 4th century AD, for the purposes of Constantine’s Roman Empire.

    that later put human in need of creating images to represent sounds and recording the experience with the all the “Enlightened Ones” by means of Natural Selection

    Religious memes, certainly reproduce by the “natural selection”, of genocides, forced conversions, and socio-economic pressures, with some crusading religions replacing others, while claiming to be “the enlightened ones”!

    Bible is Not a book of any Scientific knowledge,

    Unfortunately, fundamentalists don’t know that.

    It is the Book of Re-introduction of God ( that believed to be the one who made the decision and put every single thing into existence),

    According to the “interpretations” of its followers. who psychologically need anthropomorphic parent figure leaders in their heads. Thousands of other religions differ.

    Even the Bible Not the final, because human tends to go away from the True original Introduction of the God, due to the “Evil nature” of Human mind

    That is the myth of “original sin”, but as the “Garden of Eden , Adam, Eve, talking snakes etc.” did not exist, there is no “original sin” and no need for supposed “redeemers”!

    that carried away by materialistic World.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism

    : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

    : a way of thinking that gives too much importance to material possessions rather than to spiritual or intellectual things

    We should always be careful not to confuse the different definitions of “materialism”, and so confuse the acquisition of material possessions, with the naturalistic understanding of the material universe and all of its contents, which are composed of matter and energy, operating under the laws of physics.



    Report abuse

  • 29
    Not So Great says:

    It is a Natural phenomenon that human is the only physical living being that have Mind with conscious of relationship with the so-called God.

    You can do an experiment, a repeatable and observable, just raise a child as a subject outside any sort of religious influence, under a full isolation of any religious environment, not even “oh my God” phrase.

    The child will grow to an age with a considerable intelligence and start asking question, some as early as 6 years old, he/she will ask questions so weird, Why this ? Why that ? What is this? Who did that? These questions are asked while pointing to an object or incident that meant of Natural occurrence, not only to man-made object or incident.

    The child is actually experiencing a mental state that carries a strange yet friendly feeling of “Someone Great” unseen, living and monitoring him/her all the while. When the child comes to a point of basic understanding of the difference between man-made objects and Natural objects that happen to appear on its own, the child will ask a question such as “Who did this? While he/she is pointing to a living tree, mountain or other non-manmade objects. 100% subjects will come to this same point in their life; every single child will experience such phenomena even though they aren’t exposed to any kind of religious influence.

    The Question is a result of a curiosity that common to almost all children regardless their political, geographical, socio-economic and religious background, who understood that all objects are made therefore someone, must have made it. Such a question with answer ready occurs naturally. When they look at a mountain or river an immediate rush of curiosity occurs that answering itself that “Someone Great” must have made it.

    If you ask the child a basic question, how does mountain happen to be there? The child will spontaneously answer “Somebody has made it”. The child has no reason to lie or no option to lie; because it is naturally wired in the child brain therefore the feeling of “Someone Great” is an Absolute Truth. Why ? Just because it is natural, a fair conclusion can be made that the “Someone Great” who is the Creator of all things is Truly Existing and Living and the same Natural feeling is also pointing out that the “Someone Great” is One and Only One. Remember that from the beginning of the experiment, the subject has not been exposed to any religious environment.

    By default, human being is Monotheistic.

    The subject will grow up to be a religious on their own. He/she will admire every existence. Thanking the “Someone Great” for good life. If misery or pain occurs he/she will ask for forgiveness from the “Someone Great” while trying to end the pain and misery. Don’t like to take someone else belonging without permission. He/she begs the “Someone Great” to protect him/her in everyday life on a regular basis and so on. When having a sexual urge, he/she will ask for opposite partner from own parents and so on. You will find that all those result shows that all good behaviors are by default. The experiment proves that human is in Good Nature by Default.

    Human being have Free Will, can freely chooce an option to deny such feeling of “Someone Great” by accusing the feeling to be False. Such denial is equal to denying the right of ownership of others. Human can opt to steal some other human belonging and to deny the regional right of others. Also, such denial equal to denying the right for other to live and so on.

    Evil exist as an opposite of good, it is as natural as good itself. In Nature every single attribute existence is in pair and with magnitude. Appreciating the “Someone Great” by Worshiping Him is by Natural order a Good deed. Denying the existence of “Someone Great” and not admiring the existence of Him is considered an opposite of Good which is an Evil deed and so forth.

    It seems that the “Someone Great” is also The Just, the details of His existence, promises, love and caring continue to be re-told by Avatars, Messengers, Representatives, Prophets and Enlightened Ones of His choice (It seems to point out that the idea of Blind Natural Selection is merely an Opinion. It is more likely a fair deal to view as if the “Someone Great” has put forth the causes and effects to bring up some human to speak His “Words”), time after time and as they emerged and later gone missing or died, during their life time they mingled around and guided their own people by re-minding about the “Someone Great” and re-enforcing rules which happen to the Default behaviors of Human Being.

    The community whom they belonged to took all the trouble for their experience throughout the History of Human Being to be recorded scriptures that guided their people to survive. All of them shared almost all common ideas regardless the geographical background; One of the common ideas is that the Evil has a Central Figure with Free Will as well, a Whisperer in Human Mind that causes human to make an evil choice to go against the Default behaviors, who is capable of introducing the Good consequence of Evil which is actually False Promises. Regularly begging for Protection from the “Someone Great” will ward against the Evil central figure. Good always overcome Evil is a Predetermination of the “Someone Great”.

    Any later message violates the above original message is considered by later Avatars, Messengers, Representatives, Prophets and Enlightened Ones to be a man-made concoction due to the Evil influence.



    Report abuse

  • Not So Great
    May 10, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    Anybody has done an observable & repeatable experiment described above ?

    Yep! – Sort of:-

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/04/17/missionary-deconverted-by-amazon-tribe/
    Daniel Everett was a missionary sent to meet the Pirahã tribe in the Brazilian Amazon, “translate the Bible for them, and ultimately bring them to Christ.”

    Instead, [the Pirahã] brought him to atheism. “The Pirahãs have shown me that there is dignity and deep satisfaction in facing life and death without the comfort of heaven or the fear of hell and in sailing toward the great abyss with a smile.”

    Not that they have escaped religion entirely. Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times.

    Personification of nature, is of course, the anthropomorphism which many mature out of during their teens if their mental development is not impeded!



    Report abuse

  • Not So Great
    May 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    It is a Natural phenomenon that human is the only physical living being that have Mind with conscious of relationship with the so-called God.

    I don’t think enough research has been done on other intelligent creatures, to make that sort of exclusive claim.

    However neuro-psychologists have identified some of the locations of the god-delusions in humans.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm
    University of Missouri researchers have completed research that indicates spirituality is a complex phenomenon, and multiple areas of the brain are responsible for the many aspects of spiritual experiences. Based on a previously published study that indicated spiritual transcendence is associated with decreased right parietal lobe functioning, MU researchers replicated their findings. In addition, the researchers determined that other aspects of spiritual functioning are related to increased activity in the frontal lobe.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.