How Religion Helps People

[Guyver]

Religion helps people in many ways.  Religion in proper context is good for a lot of people.  Having said that, religion can harm people too.  I am not forgetting the fact that where there is A, there must also be B.  So, yes, religion can at times harm people greatly, especially for the extreme fundamentalists of any sect.  They can be so crazed they kill with pleasure.  I am not speaking of that.  I am speaking to the notion that a belief in religion is not only normal, but it is healthy for a large portion of the population.  I intend to support my argument with scientific facts and reasoning.

ONE- religion helps people because it gives people something to believe in.  

TWO - religion helps people because it allows them to follow their own social norms, and therefore be accepted by the people with whom they were raised.

Both having something to believe in (having hope) and being accepted by the group are scientifically proven facts that actually help people.  On my next post, I continue to argue specifically how religion helps people who represent a large percentage of the population.  On my next post I will argue with population dynamics.

[Guyver]

I would like you to think back now, on studying Statistics.  You had to have it in college and in advanced classes in High School.  You learned of the mean, median, and mode.  Those are terms that relate to the study of population dynamics.  
 

For example, statistically speaking, fifty percent of the human population is of below average in intelligence.  Imagine I posted a graph, a bell curve with the mean being the largest amount of data.  That means, half the people of the population exceed that number in intelligence (let’s just say it’s 110 I.Q.). And, similarly half the people have an IQ less than 110.  That means half the people you meet are stupid compared to you, at the minimum, if you are above average in intelligence.  So, what does that mean?

Heres what it means.  Only smart people can properly think for themselves.  More than half the population of people are too dumb to figure things out for themselves, and they need someone smarter to figure things out for them.  
 

Therefore, a person who can be told what to do can benefit from being told what to do, and that represents more than half of every swinging Richard or Sally on this planet.

[Guyver]

So, when people start criticizing religion and beliefs around here, I hope you remember that you are criticizing yourself.  What?  Eerrrr?  What do you mean.  I mean every person reading this is a member of the Human Population.  And guess what?  Everyone everywhere for always has always believed in things.  So deal with it if you don’t believe.  Belief is as natural as fear.  

Edited November 30, 2023 by Guyver

[Guyver]

I remember watching a very interesting documentary, more than one actually, about a tribe of people from the rainforest who made contact with modern man through gift exchange.  They were a previously unreached people group, like many people of the Amazon.  
 

Anyway, in their world, they had the support of the modern world.  They could get supplies, medical attention and so forth.  But, their neighbors were unreached people who wished nothing to do with Modern Europeans or their fancy gifts and their flying machines.  They prefer to follow the ways of their fathers, the ways of the forest.  And that means they will kill you with poison arrows if you invade their territory.  Sadly, a great man was killed in this exchange, but on the upside, both tribes got to express their beliefs.  And though they lived next door, in the same jungle…they did both have beliefs, but their beliefs were different.

What does that mean?  It means belief is largely a result of cultural upbringing.

[Guyver]

By nature, statistically speaking…..most people will believe and follow the culture and religion they were born into.

[Guyver]

I rest my case.

[eight bits]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

ONE- religion helps people because it gives people something to believe in.  

In your view, is there a shortage of true things to believe in?

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

TWO - religion helps people because it allows them to follow their own social norms, and therefore be accepted by the people with whom they were raised.

In your view, secular people are unable to function smoothly in society?

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, what does that mean?

That raw IQ scores are scaled to a normal (Gaussian, "bell curve," ...) distribution with a mean of 100 (and so a median and a mode of 100), and a standard deviation chosen by the test publisher, with 15 and 30 being prevalent choices.

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Heres what it means.  Only smart people can properly think for themselves.  More than half the population of people are too dumb to figure things out for themselves, and they need someone smarter to figure things out for them.  

Consider the analogy of requiring a visual acuity test to hold a drivers licence. A popular standard in the United States is 20/40 (6/12 for the rest of the world). Does that represent some careful analysis of how "good" your eyesight needs to be to drive a car or other vehicle? NO.

We have an intuition that some level of eyesight quality is necessary to drive safely. Visual acuity is easy to test (something like a minute in my state, administered by somebody with no opthamology credentials whatsoever, and you have the result on the spot). Obviously, there is more to driving-relevant eyesight quality than acuity. Color vision, for example (it would be nice to know whether that blinking light up ahead is red or yellow...). How many people do you know who are "night blind"? How many of them have a restriction on their licenses?

OK, we test acuity. Does 20/40 represent some level of performance below which you are unsafe on the road? Yes and no. No in the sense of where the value comes from: it's a "round number" at which a very large percentage of the population either has, or can have with corrective lenses, that level in each eye. And, among those who cannot be corrected to 20/40, a large portion of them are legally blind or badly impaired.

But yes in the sense that once you know that everybody on the road has tested 20/40 or better sometime during the last few or several years, you use that information to design road signs, pavement guide lines, etc. So there is some truth to linking the outcome of the test to highway safety, but it isn't something inherent in what a "passing score" on the test actually measures.

I think IQ tests are worse, because I have a lingering suspicion that what IQ tests test is the ability to take IQ tests. 100 is a nice round number, so is 20/40. These numbers are not entirely meaningless. but neither should they be seen as more "scientific" than expedient.

I don't want to digress too far on that, but only to explain why I think your model of a society where half the population is somehow better off by being told what to do rather than thinking for themselves is repugnant to me, morally, politically, and yes friend Guyver, statistically.

Note that I never even reach the quesion of whether religious authorities, of all people, are fit to tell the proles what to do.

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

 Belief is as natural as fear.  

It's not your fault, but I'm sick and tired of this "people are hard wired to believe" bullsh*t.

There is a vast scholarly literature on rational belief. Hume is pretty good, Laplace is even better, and that was more than 200 years ago. Progress has been made since.

So, yes, human beings are hard wired not to curl up in a ball and die whenever they need to take action and do not know for certain all the facts that may be relevant to the outcome of that action. No Shinola, Sherlock.

That buys superstition nothing. That buys consulting bronze age shepherds or late ancient caravan robbers for advice about living in the modern world nothing. That buys those who are contemptuous of weighing evidence nothing. You see my drift.

Edited November 30, 2023 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671693/

https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/December-2016/The-Mental-Health-Benefits-of-Religion-Spiritual

It's the crazies that mostly give it a bad name and the cult variants.

[Piney]

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671693/

https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/December-2016/The-Mental-Health-Benefits-of-Religion-Spiritual

It's the crazies that mostly give it a bad name and the cult variants.

Religion, like politics has a "people problem". 

[Guyver]

I agree with all three responses to some degree.  

 

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

In your view, is there a shortage of true things to believe in?

No, there is no shortage of true things to believe in, IMO.  But for many things the truth of a matter is not so easy to determine.  

Quote

In your view, secular people are unable to function smoothly in society?

No, that is not my view.  I believe secular people are able to function smoothly in society, and I consider myself one.  But at the same time, people who have religion, faith, beliefs and practices are also able to function in society.  And around here, those people receive all kinds of snotty treatment from the "faithful" around here and I think it sucks.  Just because a person may have beliefs and practices that differ from yours, or some other person around here, does not mean that they should be constantly subjected to derision and ridicule.  That's what I don't like about this forum, and especially right here in this section where most of the people have no religious beliefs, faith, or spiritual practices whatsoever, yet continually insult those who do.  I think it's just bad human behavior.  Why can't people just accept that not everyone shares a secular opinion or mindset, and they are just as welcome to their beliefs, as a person who has no beliefs is welcome to theirs.  

But, I would argue that everyone has beliefs, whether they admit it or not.  

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

I think IQ tests are worse, because I have a lingering suspicion that what IQ tests test is the ability to take IQ tests. 100 is a nice round number, so is 20/40. These numbers are not entirely meaningless. but neither should they be seen as more "scientific" than expedient.

 

Fair enough.  I chose 110 as a random number, even though I heard about 100 was the mean and I'll tell you why.  It's because Koko the Talking Gorilla scored about 100 on an IQ test.  So, that makes about half the population of humans about as smart as a smart gorilla.

Quote

I don't want to digress too far on that, but only to explain why I think your model of a society where half the population is somehow better off by being told what to do rather than thinking for themselves is repugnant to me, morally, politically, and yes friend Guyver, statistically.

If you understand mean, median, and mode, then why would you consider it statistically repugnant?  It's factual based on math. The mean does divide the data set in two.  So, about half the population is below the mean in intelligence, and about half the population is above average in intelligence.  

Quote

Note that I never even reach the quesion of whether religious authorities, of all people, are fit to tell the proles what to do.

Perhaps politicians are no better suited to tell people what to do, but that's what happens.  

Quote

It's not your fault, but I'm sick and tired of this "people are hard wired to believe" bullsh*t.

I don't think it's BS.  I think it's factual.  Every nation, culture, and people group of which I am aware is filled with people who believe things.  Many believe in the gods, or angels, demons, fairies, spirits, what have you....and many have superstitions.  Famous athletes are notorious for their superstitious beliefs.  Patrick Mahomes, and Michael Spinks come to mind as famous people who had superstitions about their "lucky socks."  In a recent world series, there was a man who wore his grandmother's pearl necklace for good luck.  This happens all the time with people everywhere.  We are by nature a superstitious lot, I would argue.  

Quote

There is a vast scholarly literature on rational belief. Hume is pretty good, Laplace is even better, and that was more than 200 years ago. Progress has been made since.

Will you elaborate on what you mean by "rational belief?"

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Fair enough.  I chose 110 as a random number, even though I heard about 100 was the mean and I'll tell you why.  It's because Koko the Talking Gorilla scored about 100 on an IQ test.  So, that makes about half the population of humans about as smart as a smart gorilla.

If you understand mean, median, and mode, then why would you consider it statistically repugnant?  It's factual based on math. The mean does divide the data set in two.  So, about half the population is below the mean in intelligence, and about half the population is above average in intelligence.  

Perhaps politicians are no better suited to tell people what to do, but that's what happens.  

I don't think it's BS.  I think it's factual.  Every nation, culture, and people group of which I am aware is filled with people who believe things.  Many believe in the gods, or angels, demons, fairies, spirits, what have you....and many have superstitions.  Famous athletes are notorious for their superstitious beliefs.  Patrick Mahomes, and Michael Spinks come to mind as famous people who had superstitions about their "lucky socks."  In a recent world series, there was a man who wore his grandmother's pearl necklace for good luck.  This happens all the time with people everywhere.  We are by nature a superstitious lot, I would argue.  

Will you elaborate on what you mean by "rational belief?"

Except that strictly speaking it’s not factual, at least not in regards to religion. What IS apparently hard-wired is a need to ascribe an explanation to or for the unknown. That’s not the same thing and as to many people being religious more often than not that comes down to being taught by one’s elders over multiple generations to believe a particular way. There’s nothing hard-wired about that either. 
 

cormac

Edited November 30, 2023 by cormac mac airt

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Fair enough.  I chose 110 as a random number, even though I heard about 100 was the mean and I'll tell you why.  It's because Koko the Talking Gorilla scored about 100 on an IQ test.  So, that makes about half the population of humans about as smart as a smart gorilla.

Got a link for that story about Koko?

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

If you understand mean, median, and mode, then why would you consider it statistically repugnant?  It's factual based on math. The mean does divide the data set in two.  So, about half the population is below the mean in intelligence, and about half the population is above average in intelligence.  

The root difficulty is the identification of what IQ tests measure with "intelligence."  You then compound the difficulty by decreeing that the median human performance on the test is some kind of threshold for being better off being told what to do rather than thinking for oneself.

Yeah, I understand mean, mode, and median just fine. Thank you for asking. Those terms have little or nothing to do with the actual problem here.

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

I don't think it's BS.  I think it's factual.  Every nation, culture, and people group of which I am aware is filled with people who believe things.  Many believe in the gods, or angels, demons, fairies, spirits, what have you....and many have superstitions.  Famous athletes are notorious for their superstitious beliefs.  Patrick Mahomes, and Michael Spinks come to mind as famous people who had superstitions about their "lucky socks."  In a recent world series, there was a man who wore his grandmother's pearl necklace for good luck.  This happens all the time with people everywhere.  We are by nature a superstitious lot, I would argue.  

People believe in many things. How does that relate to your claim that there is some anatomical or physiological imperative to do so?

By the way, luck is sometimes a placeholder for a missing or refused explanation, I wouldn't assume that whenever somebody says "I do it for good luck" that they don't mean "I neither know nor care why I feel better being reminded of my grandmother during high stakes performance situations."

I went to a memorial service yesterday for a friend who died. On display next to her ashes were a few personal items that her family cherished. One of them was a dog plush toy. The deceased was owned by a dog, and sometimes she had to travel without the dog. She took the plush toy with her, so that when she missed the dog, she hugged the toy.

Yeah, people engage in ritual behavior in order, not to put too fine a point on it, to alter their state of consciousness. My friend's plush toy, and sports stars' "lucky socks" are the same order of being. IMO, of course.

(BTW, I take pictures of that same dog, and when I miss him, which I do, and when now I am concerned about his emotional well being, I look at those pictures. I feel better when I do that. Ritual behavior, change of consciousness, improved performance. Funny how they go together; funny how professional performers in whatever field notice that they go together.)

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Will you elaborate on what you mean by "rational belief?"

No, I am not  qualified to improve upon what comes up with such searchable terms as Hume rational belief or Laplace rational belief. The latter will quickly point you to Bayes rational belief and eventually to non-Bayesian rational belief. If along the way you stumble across some specific issue you'd like to discuss, then I might be qualified to point you to some resource to address your  issue. Or not, depends on the issue.

On a point arising:

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except that strictly speaking it’s not factual, at least not in regards to religion. What IS apparently hard-wired is a need to ascribe an explanation to or for the unknown. That’s not the same thing and as to many people being religious more often than not that comes down to being taught by one’s elders over multiple generations to believe a particular way. There’s nothing hard-wired about that either. 

No, I don't think so. Explanations are always welcome, but hardly ever necessary to achieve prediction or control objectives. (Ask "big data" for an explanation sometime, good luck with that).

I congratulate you on a shrewd choice of words: to ascribe an explanation to or for the unknown. So, no problem if no actual explanation is on offer.

The difficulty is that without evidence you set aside the possibility that both speaker and listener know perfectly well that such utterances as "God did it" are conventional ways for the speaker to decline to offer an actual explanation. Anecdotally, I have encountered people who have displayed full awareness that that is what Insh'allah means in cultures where that phrase is common. How is "God did it" an improvement upon the Arabic phrase or so radically different that English speakers understand it differently?

What petitionary religion offers is hope that there is some way to predict or control natural phenomena when no natural way to do that is known, or when the known natural way requires more effort and expense than killing a goat to get some god's favorable attention. I am unaware of any religion that explains how its gods are supposed to accomplish fulfilment of your request. The religions popular in my culture tell me only that their God moves in mysterious ways.

That is not an explanation in any useful sense of the word.

Edited November 30, 2023 by eight bits

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I congratulate you on a shrewd choice of words: to ascribe an explanation to or for the unknown. So, no problem if no actual explanation is on offer.

Thanks, I did it on purpose as I can’t see Guyver’s interpretation as any sort of panacea for the human condition which IMO is how it comes across. 
 

cormac

[Crazy Horse]

15 hours ago, Guyver said:

Religion helps people in many ways.  Religion in proper context is good for a lot of people.  Having said that, religion can harm people too.  I am not forgetting the fact that where there is A, there must also be B.  So, yes, religion can at times harm people greatly, especially for the extreme fundamentalists of any sect.  They can be so crazed they kill with pleasure.  I am not speaking of that.  I am speaking to the notion that a belief in religion is not only normal, but it is healthy for a large portion of the population.  I intend to support my argument with scientific facts and reasoning.

ONE- religion helps people because it gives people something to believe in.  

TWO - religion helps people because it allows them to follow their own social norms, and therefore be accepted by the people with whom they were raised.

Both having something to believe in (having hope) and being accepted by the group are scientifically proven facts that actually help people.  On my next post, I continue to argue specifically how religion helps people who represent a large percentage of the population.  On my next post I will argue with population dynamics.

The saying, "diversity is strength" only applies if all of those involved, are pulling in the same direction, and yes, of course, religion was always one way to unify a people.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

And around here, those people receive all kinds of snotty treatment from the "faithful" around here and I think it sucks.  

Duly noted.  You're a good guy but I at least don't really accept evaluations of snottiness by people who have posted things here beyond mere 'snotty', like unfortunately you have.  I'll grant that at least a few times you weren't, let's just be euphemistic, of 'sound mind and body' at the time but that's zero excuse at this point.

I don't see a ton of snotty treatment towards the faithful for their beliefs here, I see it more towards their claims and posting behavior.  The vast majority of snottiness is directed at ideas here, not people, there's a big difference and it goes both ways.  Why aren't believers like Hammerclaw and Die Checker on the receiving end of this bad treatment?  You may want to pay closer attention to the differences between those posters and the ones you think are being treated unfairly.

 

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Duly noted.  You're a good guy but I at least don't really accept evaluations of snottiness by people who have posted things here beyond mere 'snotty', like unfortunately you have.  I'll grant that at least a few times you weren't, let's just be euphemistic, of 'sound mind and body' at the time but that's zero excuse at this point.

I don't see a ton of snotty treatment towards the faithful for their beliefs here, I see it more towards their claims and posting behavior.  The vast majority of snottiness is directed at ideas here, not people, there's a big difference and it goes both ways.  Why aren't believers like Hammerclaw and Die Checker on the receiving end of this bad treatment?  You may want to pay closer attention to the differences between those posters and the ones you think are being treated unfairly.

 

Maybe I've been overreacting?  It is possible, I have been going through some great and bad times simultaneously, and I could just be having issues.  

[Guyver]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Got a link for that story about Koko?

I mean, I could look it up.  I have the video A Conversation with Koko. It's available on youtube.   The quote I gave was from Dr. Patterson herself.  

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except that strictly speaking it’s not factual, at least not in regards to religion. What IS apparently hard-wired is a need to ascribe an explanation to or for the unknown. That’s not the same thing and as to many people being religious more often than not that comes down to being taught by one’s elders over multiple generations to believe a particular way. There’s nothing hard-wired about that either. 
 

cormac

What do you mean it's not factual in regards to religion?  A person's beliefs can be considered their religion cant they?  Regarding the tribe of native I had referenced earlier....they had beliefs about the way a person soul travels and where it goes after death according to their own environment.  I don't remember if it was a particular mountain, or whatever it was the is where the souls go, but, they was their belief as "primitive" people.  How is that not a religion?  

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

The root difficulty is the identification of what IQ tests measure with "intelligence."  You then compound the difficulty by decreeing that the median human performance on the test is some kind of threshold for being better off being told what to do rather than thinking for oneself.

Yeah, I understand mean, mode, and median just fine. Thank you for asking. Those terms have little or nothing to do with the actual problem here.

People believe in many things. How does that relate to your claim that there is some anatomical or physiological imperative to do so?

 

I mean, are we talking about two different things here?  On the one hand, you seem to object to the validity of IQ test, or have some objection to them.....and then the next point is how I'm claiming that religious beliefs and superstitions appear to be hard wired in the human population.

On the first part......I have heard criticisms of IQ tests....but at the same time, they do measure intelligence, possibly to a very large degree.  That is to say they measure a persons natural ability to use intelligence.  Just because a person can score highly on an IQ test does not guarantee they are going to succeed in life.  It just indicates that they have above average ability with high level thinking skills.  So, yes....as it pertains to the human population, the IQ test, being the most commonly used assessment and has been for a really long time.....it does point to what we already know.  Some people are smarter than other people. 

And as a measure of that "smartness" goes in whatever form.....given enough participants for study.....a mean of that data can be established.  Therefore....that number does show that a significant portion of the population is below average in intelligence.  That's all I'm saying about that.  I'm suggesting that some types of people, especially those that are below average in intelligence can benefit from a religious system that gives them the answers they need to whatever questions they may ask....and the rules and beliefs of that religion help guide their lives and give them what they believe is a purpose for living. 

I'm suggesting that many people who represent normal or below average intelligence could easily benefit from the socialization with others in their group and its easy.  One doesn't have to think much about it.  Just go with the program that's already working for others and blend in.  I could be complete BS, but it is my opinion.  

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

No, I am not  qualified to improve upon what comes up with such searchable terms as Hume rational belief or Laplace rational belief. The latter will quickly point you to Bayes rational belief and eventually to non-Bayesian rational belief. If along the way you stumble across some specific issue you'd like to discuss, then I might be qualified to point you to some resource to address your  issue. Or not, depends on the issue.'t think so. Explanations are always welcome, but hardly ever necessary to achieve prediction or control objectives. (Ask "big data" for an explanation sometime, good luck with that).

 

I have read Bayes to a small degree, and have read Hume and Locke.  Have not read Laplace nor heard of his/her work.  But again, if the point is rational belief that we are discussing, using Google....here's what I came up with on a quick search.

"A theory of rational belief should get the cases right1. It should predict intuitively compelling verdicts or help us see things in a new light. It should also incorporate the principles we should use to explain these verdicts. While extensional adequacy matters, intuitive verdicts are not our only guide. A theory of rational belief should incorporate sound principles so that it might say the right things for the right reasons."

I mean....what am I supposed to say to that?  OK?  Its way too vague and nonspecific, IMO.  

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, Guyver said:

What do you mean it's not factual in regards to religion?  A person's beliefs can be considered their religion cant they?  Regarding the tribe of native I had referenced earlier....they had beliefs about the way a person soul travels and where it goes after death according to their own environment.  I don't remember if it was a particular mountain, or whatever it was the is where the souls go, but, they was their belief as "primitive" people.  How is that not a religion?  

Because 8 bits said this specifically: 

Quote

“It's not your fault, but I'm sick and tired of this "people are hard wired to believe" bullsh*t.”

to which you replied: 

Quote

“I don't think it's BS.  I think it's factual.”

There’s no actual evidence that people are so hard-wired. What people ARE hard-wired for are to find patterns, hence pareidolia, and seek answers via our innate curiosity. Nothing suggests we’re hard-wired to believe. 
 

cormac

[psyche101]

21 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, when people start criticizing religion and beliefs around here, I hope you remember that you are criticizing yourself.  What?  Eerrrr?  What do you mean.  I mean every person reading this is a member of the Human Population.  And guess what?  Everyone everywhere for always has always believed in things.  So deal with it if you don’t believe.  Belief is as natural as fear.  

One can overcome a fear. 

And religion.

[Guyver]

9 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Because 8 bits said this specifically: 

to which you replied: 

There’s no actual evidence that people are so hard-wired. What people ARE hard-wired for are to find patterns, hence pareidolia, and seek answers via our innate curiosity. Nothing suggests we’re hard-wired to believe. 
 

cormac

You don’t think it can argued that we are hardwired by our DNA, our genes, and the expression of those genes influenced by environmental conditions?  If so, then we are hard-wired.  We are hard wired by Mother Nature herself.  So, what we have to argue is whether or not the propensity for superstitious beliefs, religion as a practice of those beliefs is part of our hard-wiring.  I argue that it is just because of the ridiculously high level of religions, and superstitious beliefs from people all over the world, for almost as far back as we can reliably go with science right now.