A quote: “He who eats the bread and drinks the cup with an unbelieving heart eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” This line is from the communion liturgy of the Church I grew up in—the Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The word “judgment” in the quote is a way of saying "damnation to Hell". The word “unbelieving” refers to disbelief in the core metaphysical doctrines of the Church. The effect of regular repetition of lines like this in the service is to strike fear in the person who may be questioning such doctrines. Fear in turn squelches inquiry and creative thought. I was only eight years old when I first heard that line and understood what it meant.
The point of this blog is not to criticize religious beliefs. I think many are wrong, many right, and many we just can’t know about. My focus is rather on the character of the "belief formation process" inherent in much religious practice. The phrase “belief formation process” will refer broadly to the way that beliefs in a human mind come about, are maintained, or are extinguished (or not). We all have beliefs, which have to get there somehow.
I choose this focus because I suspect my experience with the Grand Rapids CRC is representative of what goes on in a much broader spectrum of religions. This topic is also timely for Philosophy Talk, since we’re approximately halfway between our show on the existence of God and our upcoming show on the intelligent design argument. I also think that although particular religious beliefs have been much discussed and criticized, there still needs to be clearer discussion and criticism of the mental pathways by which such beliefs characteristically arise and are maintained. My view is that the a-rational nature of the religious belief formation process is pernicious and ultimately more destructive than any individual religious belief, or system of beliefs, taken by itself. That process critically involves self-deception.
首先，作为人类有一件美好的事情。我们拥有感官、推理和逻辑比较的能力，以及产生新想法的想象力。美好的事情是，只要我们早上起床，到处走走，我们就有能力迫使我们产生新的知识和更微妙的信念。由于我们的日常行为而进入我们感官的数据激发了我们的推理能力，要求我们作出解释;我们的想象力会产生想法，如果一切顺利，这些想法会提供答案。这就是关于自然的详细知识——个体的植物和动物，以及它们的系统——如何在众多不同的人类社会中产生的。特定的答案和信念会来来去去——如果一个信念不起作用，另一个就会取代它——但美丽的是这个过程和我们所拥有的让我们参与其中的天性。我们称之为健康的信念形成过程;它是由好奇心驱动的。
宗教信仰形成的过程是鲜明的对比。让我们回到我开始引用的那句话。毫无疑问，这种威胁性话语的重复在许多宗教信仰的形成中发挥了作用。但如何?Those lines provide noevidenceof their claims. Why should they bring about belief?
The first thing to note isthe vilification of unbelievers. Those with an unbelieving heart will be judged, for, presumably, they’ve done something (morally?) wrong. The vilification of unbelievers threatens exclusion from the group to anyone on the fence. And then there’s the fear of Hell that’s engendered. The net effect of the vilification and fear is that adesire to believecomes about in the mind. “ . . . eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” I certainly had such a desire in my youth.
Once there is a desire to believe the metaphysical doctrines of the religion, the mind is ripe for self-deception. Self-deception has essentially two components. First, a person forms a belief in violation of his usual standards of evidence and judgment—what philosophers call epistemic norms. Second, a desire with content related to the content of the belief causes the deviation from the healthy belief formation process. Because vilification, fear, and desire bring about the religious credence—while that credence is at odds with usual standards of judgment—the process by which religious beliefs come about is one of self-deception. (For a similar view, seethis pieceby Georges Rey.)
A religious advocate might respond that I’ve gotten it all wrong, that it’s direct encounter with the spirit of God that brings about religious belief. But then why is religious practice so full of methods that have the precise effect of establishing credence by a-rational means? The singing, the chanting, the repetition of lines that vilify unbelief, the stress on believing only onfaith？当然，这种方法的存在并非巧合。即使有些人被神圣的事物所感动，但肯定有许多人是在礼拜仪式的持续压力下形成自己的宗教信仰的。Andthat’sthe religious belief formation process I’m talking about.
这个过程到底有什么问题?首先，它与健康的信念形成过程不一致。正当反思我们的核心信念和价值观最有益的时候，它却停滞不前，破坏了健康的进程。动力是恐惧，而不是好奇心。宗教信仰形成过程中所涉及的各种因素，通过在一长串具体的教义中表现为邪恶的怀疑，使我们脱离了正常健康的信仰生成和修正的创造过程。Persons attending a religious ceremony are made to fear the prospect that somethingelse他们可能会觉得这是真的。头脑失去了灵活性。考虑一些例子。在伽利略的新证据面前，地球是宇宙中心的信念怎么会持续这么久呢?否则，一个以圣女贞德为领袖，将其封为圣徒的教会怎么会认为女性绝对不适合领导会众呢?Why do evangelicals who have seenpictures桦尺蠖变色的原因相信自然选择从未发生过吗?否则，我们该如何解释天主教会高层的信仰?他们认为，在南非这个因艾滋病而瘫痪的国家，教导和分发性保护措施是错误的?这里需要对现实作出回应。但这恰恰是宗教信仰形成过程所缺乏的。人类心灵的美好被破坏了。
Why else do I think the religious belief formation process itself isworse比任何特定的信仰都重要?正如我一直强调的，我认为健康的信念形成过程是我们人性的核心;这一点被破坏是一个悲剧。But as importantly, humanactions当他们被对现实毫无反应的信念所驱使时，他们会表现出一种邪恶而顽固的性格。十字军和圣战者的问题主要不在于他们认为他们的敌人是邪恶的;而是他们的信仰对受害者简单的人性感动无动于衷。一种信仰可以解释一场冲突，但它需要一个堕落的、自我欺骗的信仰形成过程来解释一场十字军东征背后的一套信仰的系统性维护。其他的例子不胜枚举:宗教裁判所，天主教会长期以来对神职人员猥亵儿童的行为无能为力(我们怎么能解雇上帝任命的人呢?)，杰里·福尔韦尔(Jerry Falwell)的恶意谴责(以及那些听取并采取行动的人)，举几个例子。所有这些案例都涉及到错误的信念，如果不是被宗教信仰形成过程隔离，这些错误的信念就会因为对现实的一点反应而改变。教条主义的信仰会导致破坏性的行为。进一步的危险是，接受这种堕落的信念形成过程可能会传播并导致我们认知经济的更广泛腐败。
So what of the intelligent design argument, the argument that posits an intelligent creator to explain the ordered complexity of life in the natural world? It’s fine; these criticisms don’t touch it. I don’t think it ultimately works; nor does it fall in the domain of science. But I wish all religious thinking had such a rational character. The reasoning involved in that argument is an instance of the healthy belief formation process in action. We’d all be better off if religious people thought so rationally all the time.
What, finally, offaith？我知道“信仰”这个词有两种用法——一种是有害的，一种是值得称赞的。在最糟糕的情况下，“信仰”被用来修辞学，让人们对教会的“智者”想让你相信的东西产生一种理性的、不经反思的信任。我想我已经说得够多了，足以表明我认为这种“信仰”的错误之处。但是这个词还有另一种意思。在这个意义上，信仰是一种引导行动的信心，即如果我们毫不妥协地追求善，善就会到来。这种信念与对善的不确定性是一致的，就结果而言，最终会是什么。而且，不管宗教领袖怎么说，拥有这种信仰也与积极质疑宗教教义是一致的。简而言之，这种意义上的信仰并不与求知欲对立。
Comments(19)
Guest
Saturday, January 7, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
I have two comments on this posting. First, unlikI have two comments on this posting.
First, unlike Mr Van Leeuwen, although I probably qualify as an unbeliever, I am not threatened by the admonition that the communicant ?who eats the bread and drinks the cup with an unbelieving heart eats and drinks judgment upon himself.? Indeed if 'God' fails to cast judgement on such a hypocrite then I might be happy to step in as 'his' surrogate. But actually as I interpret the passage that won't be necessary, because I suspect that the threat is correct in that the false communicant stands judged more in his own heart than by either 'God' or man.
Of course this is not to deny that the religious "belief formation process" is often tainted by threat - if not of damnation then at least of social penalties. And in fact that mechanism (of social pressure to engage in hypocritical behaviour which then brings moral pressure to rationalize belief with that behaviour) may be little more than a variation on the theme that is being put forward by Mr Van Leeuwen.
However, I do not believe it is fair to say that the religious belief formation process is *always* so tainted, and in fact, rather than use the means to unjustify the end, I would suggest that it is the end - namely beliefs that lack "Responsiveness to reality" which is the main problem.
And to that end, my second comment is perhaps more relevant.
Mr Van Leeuwen states that "We all have beliefs, which have to get there somehow." But if by "beliefs" he means anything similar to religious beliefs in strength (and imperviousness to reality), then I believe (in the weaker sense) that he is wrong.
Guest
Monday, January 9, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
每个人都独自站在上帝面前。They judge them每个人都独自站在上帝面前。他们自己判断。他们知道真相。他们知道他们是否正确地喝下了基督之杯(真理)。这有点像做数学。当你不懂一个公式的时候，你就知道了。当你在课堂上展示这个公式时你知道你对它的理解有多好。地狱是一种精神状态。
Guest
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
As I understand it, there are two kinds of beliefsAs I understand it, there are two kinds of beliefs being discussed here; those that arise via the senses from direct experience and those that are either intuited or received from a trusted source. Phrased this way, the issue ceases to be one of just religious indoctrination, but includes also education in the wisdom of Mao, the righteousness of the Republican party or the infallibility of the scientific method. In films of Nazi rallies, or the beautiful coordinated movements of masses of North Koreans at a public event, it is clear that one is viewing a ritual of worship.
像政治集会、体育赛事或宗教崇拜这样的大规模仪式，无论它们可能包含什么特征，都没有本质上的错误，而是应该通过它们是否提高或降低了忠实信徒的生活来衡量。我认为看足球比赛是浪费时间，但我不这么认为。don’我们不能剥夺任何人在超级碗的狂喜交流。
One may have a reasonable faith, while lacking a single stick of evidence to prove it. String theory is based on elegant mathematical proofs, yet it makes no predictions, is unfalsifiable and unsupported by observation or experiment. Unless it meets any of those conditions, it will cease to be viable science, regardless of whether it may be true.
与此同时，宗教信仰并不需要超出经验证明的范围。以“爱你的邻居”为例。人们可以用各种理性的理由来反对它，比如，如果你的邻居?有猥亵儿童的人，打老婆的人，或者抢劫过你的房子??信主的人可能会回答说:“在这种情况下，他更需要同情和理解。”也许我们的信徒是naïve，但他的信仰是可测试的，可以通过个人的经验和观察来验证。活出他的“真相”，会让你成为一个更好的人，还是一个贪吃惩罚的人?
谴责不信教的人呢?作为一个社会，我们做得更糟糕，我们把违规者关进一个想象的地狱，我们把他们关进一个真实的地狱。我们要求彼此尊重部落习俗，而不顾我们的法律是否冒犯了个人?性取向、道德感或与自然世界正确关系的信念。它吗?我们的公共道路还是高速公路!宗教并没有垄断判断善恶的市场。
The world would likely be a better place if everyone were a Socrates, confessing ignorance and searching out constructive dialogue with those of an opposite mind. Instead, we tend to club together in mobs of like mind, raising the ramparts around ourselves, to keep out the barbarians who dare to differ.
Faith and reason are not opposed, but complementary. A scientist puts her faith in the scientific method, and the belief that our minds do not hopelessly distort our picture of reality. A sincere believer in God, seeks an embodied and living faith, not a musty superstition of mind. When Newton and Leibnitz discovered the calculus, they trusted their inner eye and bore in their fertile minds a new gospel of mathematics. And, when Moses brought down the tablets from Mt. Sinai, he gave that unruly mob of ex-slaves a practical set of guidelines to help bind them together in community.
Neil Van Leeuwen
Thursday, January 12, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
非常感谢你们三位的评论。There a非常感谢你们三位的评论。他们在我脑海中提出了三个问题，我想谈谈。
1. Does religious belief formation *always* go by the process I identified? (Alan Cooper seems to take it to be a criticism of my post that it doesn't.)
2. Are there other contexts aside from religion in which the process I call religious belief formation arises? (David Chilstrom raises this issue.)
3. Who's to blame for such corruption of the healthy belief formation process? (This question is raised by the beginning of Alan's comments.)
The answer to the first question is clearly "no," and I suggest as much in my original post. I think it's possible that people become convinced that there's an intelligent designer--perhaps even one who should be worshiped--by simple reflection on the complex beauty of the natural world. Of course, I'm not convinced by this sort of reasoning, but what this shows is that not all religious beliefs are formed in the pernicious way that I focus on.
谈到第二个问题，我认为，在宗教之外，还有很多其他的信仰形成环境，以我所描述的方式，利用人们的自我欺骗能力。任何一种意识形态的团体设置都可以给我们提供例子——纳粹集会、三k党集会、共产主义示威和全国步枪协会大会。鉴于这些宗教以外的例子，你可能会认为我用“宗教信仰形成过程”来指代我所描述的过程太草率了。当然，这仅仅是一个术语上的观点，但它暗示了我的论点将如何被接受。然而，最后，我不认为我的术语用得太仓促:我所确定的过程具有足够的宗教信仰形成特征，足以配得上我所给出的标题。我还想补充的是，其他意识形态背景的例子有助于证明我更重要的观点:这种信仰形成的过程真的很糟糕——在宗教和其他地方。
最后，这该怪谁?图灵似乎在暗示，这是“伪君子”的错，他把自己置于这样的宗教环境中。这种说法有一定道理;我认为成年的人当然应该对自己的认知方式负责。问题是灌输从很小的时候就开始了;这就破坏了人们健康的信念形成过程，甚至在他们有机会为自己的认知负责之前。宗教和其他思想体系所做的是使人们在早期习惯于自我欺骗的信念形成过程;我的猜想是，一旦这一点确立，更广泛的认知经济就会变得更加腐败，在其他情况下也容易受到这类过程的影响。如果这是真的，那么宗教会腐蚀年轻人的思想。
Guest
Thursday, January 12, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
One of the dubious premises of this article is theOne of the dubious premises of this article is the presumption that religious belief employs a peculiar form of self deception. In reality, self deception always kicks in whenever anyone is confronted with data which conflicts with a deeply held belief. For instance, two years ago John and Ken had on the program cosmologist George Ellis, who enunciated the Anthropic Principle, which essentially states that the probability of a universe like ours, so precisely tuned to permit the existence of life, is infinitesimally small. The most logical inference to draw from the data is to posit an intelligence of some sort, with life in mind at the get go, or a multiverse scenario where ours is one of an infinite number of possible universes. As Ellis stated, the problem with the multiverse theory is that it has no scientific validity, as the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Ken?s response was that our existence is just a matter of incredible luck and that we don?t have to posit a Creator to explain the nature of the universe.
虽然肯和其他许多理性的思考者愿意接受不可思议的运气作为我们存在的充分理由，但像大多数人一样，当谈到牌桌上的过多运气或他们的孩子可能与密友惊人的相似性时，他们深表怀疑。正常的、理性的怀疑论者，只要在运用理性时产生了极端的认知失调，就会把理性抛到九霄云外。每个人都这么做，甚至像肯这样聪明的哲学家。
Were we truly rational creatures, we would examine more closely our philosophical premises when presented with evidence that throws them into doubt. Instead, we tend to shrug our shoulders and dismiss the damning data as woefully flawed or wrongly interpreted. What confirms my preexisting beliefs passes through the polarizing filter of my consciousness unhindered, while that which seriously challenges them is rendered invisible or irrelevant.
Guest
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Mr. Chilstrom, Your "essential" statement of thMr. Chilstrom,
你在上面的评论中对人择原理的“基本”陈述似乎有点混乱。
The principle itself states: If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist; then it is true simply because we exist. The principle deals with sentient observers making conclusions about the universe based upon an "appropriately positioned" point of observation. It's about the interpretation of existence as influenced by the observation selection effect rather than the probability of existence. A subtle but important distinction.
The principle doesn't prove anything. It simply illustrates insurmountable biases in our metaphysical inquiries. The Intelligent Design advocate addresses this problem with the conclusion that this bias was intended by a benevolent being who wants to be known. Whether or not this proves anything is still philosophically debatable.
Guest
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
I do agree that threat is often used to promote reI do agree that threat is often used to promote religious belief formation and I hope I was not seen as overly critical of what I actually found to be a very interesting discussion.
我的“批评”与其说是观点的有效性，不如说是论证的策略。在我看来，如果你一开始就把威胁语境确定为“宗教信仰形成过程”的特征，你可能会失去那些认为“这与我的宗教信仰形成过程不一致”的人的注意力，因此你可能会再次“向唱诗班布道”。
My suggestion is that by acknowledging at the outset that this is just *one* mode of religious belief formation, you might draw in more readers to see and agree with the thesis that building a religion by threatening children is not to be admired.
I would then also add that saying ?He who eats the bread and drinks the cup with an unbelieving heart eats and drinks judgment upon himself? to an 8-year-old is equivalent to threatening him or her with something horrible. But I still believe that to a sophisticated and morally conscious adult that sentence is not a threat but merely a statement of reality. For example, if I were to participate in a religious communion, that would be an act of conscious duplicity. It might be justified for strategic reasons, but I would certainly be remiss if I failed to judge myself.
Guest
Friday, January 20, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
The unlearned digression: Briefly reading thisThe unlearned digression:
Briefly reading this post as well as the meta-atheism hypothesis, I generally agree.
However, not knowing much more of "epistemic norm" or the "belief formation process" than what I personally have pondered (and just read), I struggle to think that religious understanding and the understanding of standard science follow the same criteria towards belief. (?) If standard science is the taken perspective on "ultimate belief", certainly "faith" is self-deception. But then is not faith, "at some level", a healthy provocative to science and broadening perspective. Without science faith diminishes, without faith, science likewise.
And is not Georges Rey's hypothesis both strong and week when claiming "..at SOME LEVEL they KNOW FULL WELL.."?
It seems to me that the key to the hypothesis? survival is at "some level". ? Sheltered by the complexity of the cognitive. As goes for "they know full well"??
Self-deception must somehow (closely) be linked to outward-deception or ?display:
If faith is adhesive doubt and doubt is constantly fought with faith. Then the outward outcome is (very often) "the OVERCOME".
我的理解是，信仰的“怀疑方面”是实用主义的，修辞上的禁忌——尽管宗教接受人类的怀疑。
以十字军东征为例，“有害信仰”似乎在宗教代表建立起一种超越宗教健康核心的信仰形态后就开始发展，成为一种矫情、过度的信仰。对现在的“我们”不了解。
Leaving the unnatural, turning to the natural(?): I?m thinking that we both inwardly and outwardly strive towards the "strong, ultimate belief/understanding". Therefore I?d say deception is inevitable in evolution and progress. ? Still in agreement that it is an unhealthy contradiction.
(Don?t quite no what I?m getting at. Suppose this comment is mainly me thinking whilst writing this.)
不过,我呢?我想加上这样一句话:“在某种程度上，我们都不可避免地会自欺欺人。”危险就像你说的，当它是集体的，少一些偏差?因此，较小的进化(朝着更健康的“普遍意见”)。
Any good url-links to further reading on "epistemic norm" or "belief formation process"?
欢迎您的回复，希望能提高我的理解。
Andrew
Sunday, January 22, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Regarding incredible luck... If the universe coRegarding incredible luck...
If the universe collapses on itself every so often, and then a big bang occurs and things happen differently (assuming we don't end up in some kind of cycle) then we are indeed very likely to have incredible luck.
Neil Van Leeuwen
Sunday, January 22, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Many thanks to all for this additional round of coMany thanks to all for this additional round of comments. I'll respond to each separately.
首先，对David Chilstrom说:我从来没有说过，自我欺骗是宗教信仰形成所特有的。当然，这种情况也会发生在其他情况下!但我认为宗教和其他意识形态背景在创造环境方面特别有效，这些环境能有效地捕捉人类自我欺骗的倾向。你注意到，自我欺骗在其他地方也发生过，而且很常见。这一点是要为宗教中的自我欺骗辩护吗?我希望不是这样。
Second, Jenni: Thanks for clarifying the anthropic principle. You sound like a philosopher. Are you? I tend to agree that there's not much solid we can conclude from fine tuning. The tuning of the constants is improbable. But are we then to posit an even more improbable "intelligence" to "explain" it? Like Wittgetstein says: "Das Mystische ist nicht, *wie* die Welt existiert, sondern, *dass* sie existiert." ("The mysterious is not, *how* the world exists, rather, *that* it exists.")
Third, to Alan Cooper: criticism well taken! I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.
Fourth, to David Michel: an epistemic norm is an abstact schema relating kinds of evidence (as input) to propositions (output) it might justify. The schema will classify some inputs as justificatory of certain propositions; others not. (This is just one way of thinking about epistemic norms.) Belief formation processes are mental pathways by which beliefs arise. When a belief formation process causally reflects pattern of justification in epistemic norm, we can say it's rational. Sometimes I use the locution epistemic norm to refer to the belief formation process itself that instantiates the norm. For further resources, go to:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.
最后，敬安德鲁:说得好!(Next time be sure to cite Aristotle, who made a very similar point long ago in the Poetics: "It is likely that unlikely things happen from time to time.")
Take care,
Neil
Guest
Friday, February 3, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Neil, thank you for this discussion on religious s尼尔，谢谢你对宗教自我欺骗的讨论——自我欺骗是我一生都在与之斗争的问题，像你的文章这样写得很好、很有道理的文章对我的个人发展有很大的帮助。谢谢你！谢谢你！
Secondly, I have an idea for a reality television show of sorts. It involves a beautiful mansion in the Los Angeles area with tennis courts, an Olympic swimming pool, a rock wall... the works. Eight people who have never met live their lives for a year in this home, all followed by hidden cameras.
The catch? All eight are mentally disabled, free to roam without supervision. The show will be called 'Tards, and will be intended for cable broadcast so that the boundaries are relaxed. For example, one episode might be centered around learning how to cook, or skeet shooting. Let me know what you think of this, and tell me about its philosophical implications.
Cordially,
Luigi Bordeaux
Guest
Saturday, May 6, 2006 -- 5:00 PM
My perspective changed completely when I starte当我开始尝试把耶稣融入我的生活时，我的观点完全改变了。我意识到，因为耶稣，我有办法与创造宇宙的上帝交谈，而拥有和控制宇宙的上帝倾听我。拥有它是值得的。耶稣说:“凡劳苦担重担的到我这里来，我就使你们得安息。”他对那些生活在严重宗教罪恶感中的人说。
Guest
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 -- 5:00 PM
Having grown up in a religious home, I was exposed在一个宗教家庭中长大，我接触到很多基于恐惧/主观内疚的神学，这实际上是对教义的有害扭曲，以适应特定的宗教领袖控制和支配他/她的教众的需要。当我在新约中读到耶稣与各行各业的人的各种互动时，我被他温柔的精神所打动。他的领导风格的特点是把人们吸引到自己身边，而不是驱使他们向他靠拢。
I tried to depict this sort of gracious characteristic of Christ in the following song:
Turn to Me
words and music by Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. BLT
(c)2006
http://www.drblt.net/music/Turntome.mp3
Guest
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
你好，尼尔，有趣的想法!I am a sort oHello Niel,
Interesting thoughts! I am a sort of philosopher. Could you please give me your definition of self-deception?
Ontological Realist
Guest
Monday, December 25, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
My own religious beliefs come not from suspending我自己的宗教信仰不是来自暂停“科学”判断，而是来自公案。公案提供了一种呈现语言问题的有趣方式。这个问题是，我们为我们周围的世界提供了意义，甚至作为一个群体，从长远来看，我们不能真正知道并正确地使用这种意义。我更喜欢自己的答案，而不是公案，即我们不可能知道一切，而不是科学幻想，认为我们有一天可以并且将会知道一切，一旦我们做到了，我们就OK了(不管OK是什么意思)。
Of course, all those who do not hold rigidly to all the pronouncements of science are suspending "scientific" judgement and thus bringing damnation unto themselves.
Guest
Friday, December 29, 2006 -- 4:00 PM
Hi all Some very interesting ideas (in what IveHi all
一些非常有趣的想法(在我快速阅读到目前为止)，但我不确定我明白所有的大惊小怪是什么。
As cognitively and time limited humans, don't we all form beliefs to resolve uncertainty (Im assuming that most people dont like feeling confused)?
If by self-deception (religious or otherwise) it is meant that we form beliefs that reduce uncertainty even though we dont have concrete evidence (i.e. self-deceive)this is commonplace - particularly for metaphysical questions such as "where did this universe come from?" etc.
But my central point is: humans both seek evidence AND form unfounded beliefs - its not one or the other. Like David Chisholm's earlier comments:
"Faith and reason are not opposed, but complementary. A scientist puts her faith in the scientific method, and the belief that our minds do not hopelessly distort our picture of reality"
科学家们收集数据来测试从理论推导中产生的想法(即信念/推测)，并使用这些结果来更新他们的信念。认为科学或信仰都能防错(甚至不会自我欺骗)的想法是非常不可信的。
如果你身边的宗教信徒觉得你的信仰是由恐惧、滥用权力和/或控制权威形成的(最有可能是被误导的成年人照顾者，而不是任何超自然的存在)，这是另一个问题。
This suggests to me that you recognise you are no longer weak / vulnerable children and can think for yourselves (cf Life of Brian). As a result, surely the need for comforting fairytales or scriptural myths are no longer required?
However, even if you accept that fear is a poor basis for belief and recognise you are no longer fearful, this won't spell the end of self-deception. For, as the parable of the Emporer's New Clothes tells us self-deception is often preferable to admitting ignorance.
Guest
Monday, October 6, 2008 -- 5:00 PM
For Ontological Realist - from what I knowFor Ontological Realist - from what I know Self deception is a dysfunction of the mind that allows individuals to continuously act in a negative manner. Now what is negative or positive is subjected to each individual and to society. We all have our own convictions.
Guest
Saturday, November 8, 2008 -- 4:00 PM
I really enjoyed the article, and am glad you tookI really enjoyed the article, and am glad you took the time and thought to write it. Then tenor is calm and non abrasive.
Things I think differ from what was presented:
Christianity does not endorse the A-rational belief forming process formally, if even some do in practice.
I think that this practice of developing belief based entirely on fear innappropriate, and eventually harmful to the believer...
Christians are encouraged to be wise and (Matthew 10:16)
and to study scripture (2timothy 2:15)
Also, the subject of self deception is an interesting one for the Christian especially.
The christian would say that those who deny the God of Christianity are self decieving, and that such a denial destroys epistimology. In other words...We all think and act like there is a God (as a precondition) then non believers deny His existence.
There is a clear and rational way of proving the God of the bible exists, however not every (and in my experience, hardly any) Church is faithful in this regard.
We are to have "childlike" faith in God, trusting in His goodness and power no matter what we think or see, but this how we live our faith, and now how we arrive at, or defend it.
Guest
Friday, April 2, 2010 -- 5:00 PM
"The Intelligent Design advocate addresses this pr"The Intelligent Design advocate addresses this problem with the conclusion that this bias was intended by a benevolent being who wants to be known."
No, this bias was intended by a benevolent being who wants to be found. There is a fundamental difference.