2 of 5
2
Top-down study of beliefs
Posted: 16 June 2013 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2013-06-12
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 01:01 PM
TromboneAndrew - 16 June 2013 11:48 AM
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 05:46 AM

From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important.  We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers.  In other words we don’t care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.

It sounds like you want to study some effects based on self-reported belief categories. I don’t see any other way to do what you want, because what may be an “ideal Taoist” or any other ideal belief system changes over time.

Yes, I think that’s a good summary.  I’m curious how these beliefs like atheism, Christianity, etc. affect behavior.  I have a suspicion that belief is not a significant factor in practical behavior and moral choices in most cases.

ยจ


Atheism is not a belief.

I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That’s why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that’s why people blow themselves up and kill “witches” and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Mike Yohe - 16 June 2013 01:12 PM

Could the Hindu and Buddha fall in that category?

I think Hinduism and Buddhism ought to be studied along with all the other common religions.  A study might find that there is more in common between certain Christian sects and certain Hindu sects than there is within each religion.

I just think it would be interesting - like cladistics applied to beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
daedroth - 16 June 2013 02:18 PM

I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That’s why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that’s why people blow themselves up and kill “witches” and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.

Most of the issues you mentioned are wedge issues used by political parties to divide the opposition’s supporters.  I’ve found that when people are actually faced with real life decisions instead of abstractions that their behavior is less polarized.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  129
Joined  2011-11-06

I am active in my local Unitarian Universalist congregation. We are a group of free-thinkers. Most do not believe in any “supernatural” aspects of religion; we do however, draw inspiration from many faiths. For example, we might focus on the concept that Jesus was possibly a real man who walked the earth preaching love and helping people, while we reject the supernatural aspects or any negative old testament or even negative new testament teachings. I believe you can still be an atheist, as I am, and still draw meaning and lessons from these ancient texts, regardless of their origins. I can pick up the Bible and read it with the approach I read any book—I can extrapolate from it what I want, viewing it as tales or folklore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 11:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Lois - 16 June 2013 06:04 AM
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 05:46 AM
Lois - 15 June 2013 11:09 PM

What beliefs do you think an atheist has, ideal or otherwise?

Lois

From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important.  We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers.  In other words we don’t care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.

Then all atheists who do not believe in impossible things and exhibit intelligence and human compassion are ideal atheists.  It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
Lois

I agree.

IMO the only way to judge a person’s humanism is by his actions, not his beliefs. If you want a top down example, you can start with the scandals and denial by the current Pope.  His latest statement that there is a homosexual lobby is of no moral consequence whatever.  If we seek purity of conscience he should address the problem of rampant pedophilia in the catholic church. He has all the records compiled by the previous Pope, who at least resigned, either from shame or cowardice. Hardly an example of religious moral purity.

[ Edited: 16 June 2013 11:47 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
FinallyDecided - 16 June 2013 05:17 PM

I am active in my local Unitarian Universalist congregation. We are a group of free-thinkers. Most do not believe in any “supernatural” aspects of religion; we do however, draw inspiration from many faiths. For example, we might focus on the concept that Jesus was possibly a real man who walked the earth preaching love and helping people, while we reject the supernatural aspects or any negative old testament or even negative new testament teachings. I believe you can still be an atheist, as I am, and still draw meaning and lessons from these ancient texts, regardless of their origins. I can pick up the Bible and read it with the approach I read any book—I can extrapolate from it what I want, viewing it as tales or folklore.

I’ve been curious about what motivates people to participate in UU and similar churches.  The local UU church in my town seems to be trying to encourage Wiccans to come but I think Wiccans tend to believe in supernatural phenomena and would not be comfortable in a church that does not?

Personally, I would never attend church unless I thought it was a requirement of my religion, so it’s hard for me to understand atheists/agnostics that seem to go voluntarily.  But I am an introvert.

[ Edited: 17 June 2013 04:21 AM by ufo-buff ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 04:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 16 June 2013 11:45 PM

I agree.

IMO the only way to judge a person’s humanism is by his actions, not his beliefs. If you want a top down example, you can start with the scandals and denial by the current Pope.  His latest statement that there is a homosexual lobby is of no moral consequence whatever.  If we seek purity of conscience he should address the problem of rampant pedophilia in the catholic church. He has all the records compiled by the previous Pope, who at least resigned, either from shame or cowardice. Hardly an example of religious moral purity.

This imaginary top-down study is not designed to judge a person’s humanism.  I’m simply curious if there is a correlation between behaviour and belief or if belief is mostly meaningless talk such as politics (as I suspect).  The “pure” Taoist/atheist/etc. would be a way to label areas of the chart, so we could say this is the Taoist area.  It isn’t necessary to label areas of the chart, but I thought it would be fun for example to tell various Christians that they are actually some other religion based on behaviour.  (That would really annoy them. smile )

[ Edited: 17 June 2013 04:29 AM by ufo-buff ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 01:08 PM
George - 16 June 2013 12:07 PM
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 05:19 AM

Here is an example: Atheists believe that death is the end.

No, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist. I know many atheists think that life goes on after death.

Well that’s a new one.  I think they are being a little bit inconsistent to reject a belief in God due to lack of evidence and continue to believe in some sort of life after death.

Captain Picard appears to be an atheist who thinks life goes on after death.  grin  You’ll find people with similar beliefs all over Europe. May be new to you, but it’s pretty common.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2013-06-12
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 03:45 PM
daedroth - 16 June 2013 02:18 PM

I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That’s why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that’s why people blow themselves up and kill “witches” and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.

Most of the issues you mentioned are wedge issues used by political parties to divide the opposition’s supporters. 

No, they’re not. All the things I mentioned are a reality because people believe certain things about the world. Their beliefs determine their behavior and their treatment of those around them, it’s an inescapable fact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
daedroth - 17 June 2013 05:32 AM
ufo-buff - 16 June 2013 03:45 PM
daedroth - 16 June 2013 02:18 PM

I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That’s why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that’s why people blow themselves up and kill “witches” and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.

Most of the issues you mentioned are wedge issues used by political parties to divide the opposition’s supporters. 

No, they’re not. All the things I mentioned are a reality because people believe certain things about the world. Their beliefs determine their behavior and their treatment of those around them, it’s an inescapable fact.

Of course belief plays a role in behaviour, but I suspect it is overrated.  For example, the vast majority of priests and pastors don’t practice what they preach.  Or as another example, in the US we get emotional every 4 years about one party being good and the other parting being bad, but then it seems like nothing changes.  Both of those examples, indicate that religious and political beliefs are mostly talk.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2013-06-12
ufo-buff - 17 June 2013 07:02 AM

Of course belief plays a role in behaviour, but I suspect it is overrated.  For example, the vast majority of priests and pastors don’t practice what they preach.  Or as another example, in the US we get emotional every 4 years about one party being good and the other parting being bad, but then it seems like nothing changes.  Both of those examples, indicate that religious and political beliefs are mostly talk.

I’m sure that not all priests practice what they preach, but how can you know that the vast majority of them don’t? Also, the animosity between Democrats and Republicans is always present, it’s just intensified during election season. Religious and political beliefs aren’t “mostly talk”. The world is shaped by what people believe and the actions that those beliefs inspire.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01
daedroth - 17 June 2013 07:39 AM
ufo-buff - 17 June 2013 07:02 AM

Of course belief plays a role in behaviour, but I suspect it is overrated.  For example, the vast majority of priests and pastors don’t practice what they preach.  Or as another example, in the US we get emotional every 4 years about one party being good and the other parting being bad, but then it seems like nothing changes.  Both of those examples, indicate that religious and political beliefs are mostly talk.

I’m sure that not all priests practice what they preach, but how can you know that the vast majority of them don’t? Also, the animosity between Democrats and Republicans is always present, it’s just intensified during election season. Religious and political beliefs aren’t “mostly talk”. The world is shaped by what people believe and the actions that those beliefs inspire.

This is precisely why we need a study like this - otherwise we can’t know for sure if clergy practice what they preach. smile  I suspect the vast majority do not practice what they preach, but this is based on my personal experience and chatting informally with family and friends about their personal experiences.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

This is really funny:

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Yeah, militant agnostics need to kick some atheist but!  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
ufo-buff - 17 June 2013 04:25 AM
Write4U - 16 June 2013 11:45 PM

I agree.

IMO the only way to judge a person’s humanism is by his actions, not his beliefs. If you want a top down example, you can start with the scandals and denial by the current Pope.  His latest statement that there is a homosexual lobby is of no moral consequence whatever.  If we seek purity of conscience he should address the problem of rampant pedophilia in the catholic church. He has all the records compiled by the previous Pope, who at least resigned, either from shame or cowardice. Hardly an example of religious moral purity.

This imaginary top-down study is not designed to judge a person’s humanism.  I’m simply curious if there is a correlation between behaviour and belief or if belief is mostly meaningless talk such as politics (as I suspect).  The “pure” Taoist/atheist/etc. would be a way to label areas of the chart, so we could say this is the Taoist area.  It isn’t necessary to label areas of the chart, but I thought it would be fun for example to tell various Christians that they are actually some other religion based on behavior (That would really annoy them. smile )

But no religion is based on behavior. Behavior is (should be) based on the religion.

I thought that my example clearly illustrates that belief has nothing to do with behavior. I was not singling out a single person (pope), I mentioned him as the very representative of god who allows thousands of cases where clergy (teachers of morality) engagedin a specific immoral behavior and instead of addressing the real problem, deflecting the conversation by condemning a natural phenomena (homosexuality), which has nothing to do with morality.

Strangely, when a teacher in a public school messes with a student they get fired, ridiculed, and prosecuted in a court of law. But the church seems exempt. Out of the thousands of cases of pedophilia, only a few have been prosecuted by law and that only after public complaints by the victims. The church just transfers the offender to a more remote place where it is likely offenses will not draw legal scrutiny.

Religion, like all large and political power structures, tends to become corrupt regardless of moral imperatives.

Response to sex abuse scandal [edit]

As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001, when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II.[5] Before given this charge, Cardinal Ratzinger was theoretically privy to all sexual abuse cases within the Church. As Prefect of the CDF, Canon Law directed Bishops to report sexual abuse cases involving priests in their diocese to Cardinal Ratzinger. However, due to the obscurity of Canon Law, even within the Church, it is unknown whether this directive was actually followed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ratzinger_as_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith

The intent of the Inquisition was not to apply justice. It was to instill fear, by any means. Hardly moral behavior based on religion.

[ Edited: 17 June 2013 02:29 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25

I think I get what you’re saying and it’s basically, the old You can’t judge a book by it’s cover.  Each of us is a book, and we present ourselves to the world with our covers, i.e. the labels we apply to ourselves.  The study you’re thinking of would be accurate if we let each person tell US, the researchers, what THEY define as the ideal X. Then study them to see if they actually behave in a way consistent with their own definitions.  So an extreme example might be, Joe says he’s an atheist, hates the bible and faith. Fine, that’s his definitions of an atheist. Now we follow him and every Sunday he goes to church and prays. Boom, bad atheist.  Now if we do that over and over with say 1000 atheist, and for the most part they all have “hate faith” as part of their definition AND at the same time are observed to pray, then we might be able to draw some conclusions about atheism in general.

Same goes with Christians, and I think your anecdotal evidence suggests, as does mine, that most Christians define themselves as following Jesus, help thy neighbor, etc. but in their daily lives do the exact opposite. Gandhi felt as much: “I like your Jesus, but your Christians, not so much”. And when I see the chief arbiters of the Catholic religion for example, priests, doing what they’ve done, and then others in their religious executive ranks covering it up, that to me tells me the religion itself, which defines itself as a means to be moral, is an objective failure.

Anywho… that would be a good study, and would take it out of the realm of personal opinion and anecdotal evidence.  I gotta believe some sociologist has done this though.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2