God is your ultimate sockpuppet

[Lt. Killer M]

No surprise to me: when people are asked 'what would Jesus do?' they will answer with what they would do. Relying on a deity to guide one's decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/01/0908374106.abstract (free PDF of full text avaiable on site)

Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

1. Nicholas Epleya,
2. Benjamin A. Conversea,
3. Alexa Delboscb,
4. George A. Monteleonec and
5. John T. Cacioppoc

Abstract

People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.


well explained e.g. here:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

[akots]

A good solid study it seems. Reading full text today certainly.

[Matrix]

Solid indeed. A clear example why it is pointless to convince people God doesn't exist. That's just as stupid as trying to convince people God does exist and that you should worship him. In the end it's just an attempt to enforce your own ideas upon others. In a political or scientific debate that can work, because there you can give prove and falsify stuff.

Put it in Karl Popper's perspective. The 'theory' of the existence of God does not exclude anything. Therefore, scientifically, it is useless to debate it. You can neither prove nor falsify that God exists. The same applies for the existence of afterlife. That is why even many of the most scientific scientists, e.g. Einstein, believe(d) in God throughout their lives (and beyond ;)).

[Socrates]

"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain"
God, John Lennon

I'd also say it's there to compensate for frustration. How can someone suddenly get rid of this and replace it with nothing but bare frustration ? Frustration is a selfish affair, so God is one's self and ultimate cure. Hence I find the theory presented here interesting. Probably needs some more thinking, to clear my ideas. ;)

[Lt. Killer M]

Solid indeed. A clear example why it is pointless to convince people God doesn't exist. That's just as stupid as trying to convince people God does exist and that you should worship him. In the end it's just an attempt to enforce your own ideas upon others. In a political or scientific debate that can work, because there you can give prove and falsify stuff.

Put it in Karl Popper's perspective. The 'theory' of the existence of God does not exclude anything. Therefore, scientifically, it is useless to debate it. You can neither prove nor falsify that God exists. The same applies for the existence of afterlife. That is why even many of the most scientific scientists, e.g. Einstein, believe(d) in God throughout their lives (and beyond ;)).

Hm, so you think we should not debate the likelyhood of the existence of gods either? Because, let's face it, for each specific god, you can test it, and thus far all theistic gods I have ever heard of have no evidence at all for them, which for any other subjects automatically means that one normally assumes inexistence. Why should I treat gods differently? I do not believe in the invisible radioactive monkey, and do not let people who believe in it influence my life.

btw, please do read up on the 'god' Einstein believed in. It(!) is nothing like any theistic god, and not even a typical deistic version of any Near-Eastern Mystery Cult god.

[Matrix]

I'm not saying you should not talk about it, but that you shouldn't see your version of it as the ultimate truth. I know your point of view very well, Killer, and in all honesty I consider it just as wrong and arrogant as the orthodox christians that refuse the theory of evolution and such...

I know little about Einstein's belief; all I know is that when he had his doubts about the relativity theory, he expressed it with the words "God does not play dice." That is just another (creative) way of saying that ultimately there is certainty, but we don't know yet how to express it in formulas.

Religion helps to streamline thought. Where atheists philosophize, religious people can also pray and talk to God. Some people think they hear him talk back directly (they are not entirely sane, IMO), some people think he replies through inspiration and intuition (like my mother) and some people only use him as someone to talk to while he understands you entirely.

[Lt. Killer M]

I'm not saying you should not talk about it, but that you shouldn't see your version of it as the ultimate truth.The people who claim 'ultimate truth' are always the religionists. Funny, hu? I have never heard an atheist do so. Nor, btw, a scientist. All we talk about is proof, tests, and disregard when proof or indications of existence are lacking. Now, I can prove for each specific theistic(!) god that it is either inexistant, or morally bankrupt. Maybe you can tell me about a god that is thus far unknown to me, which isn't - but not a single one of the very many I have been told about is actually up to the claims made about him/her/it. This is equally true of the Judeochristian god, the muslim version of it, and all the polytheistic god of Greece, Egypt, Rome etc. The latter often are possible (because the claims about their supernaturality are modest), but we totally lack indications of their existance (i.e. they are hiding, so we can disregard them), while the monotheistic religions all have the problem that their god is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent - which is totally at odds with reality, especially the benevolent part.

I know your point of view very well, Killer, and in all honesty I consider it just as wrong and arrogant as the orthodox christians that refuse the theory of evolution and such...In fact you seem to blanket your method of reasoning to my statements, but it seems you do nto graps the fundamental difference. I do never claim that 'there is absolutely no god'(+). It may, if you misinterpret the circumstances, sound so, but in fact I do not. I simply claim that there is no theistic god, unless he/she/it is an immoral bastard, and a lazy one at that. And this position is based on evidence, which is the fundamental difference to religious claims: it is not arrogant, it is not wrong, and it is not absolute truth.

hey, some god or such may tomorrow start throwing thunderbolts - who am I to say that this can't be? However, if he/she/it/they/whatever do(es), I can tell you it will not be any of the many versions of the Jewish, Christian, Mithras Cult, Muslim, etc. gods the thora, bible and quran talk about. 'Cause the gods these books talk about are impossible (i.e. internally inconsistent).

I know little about Einstein's belief; all I know is that when he had his doubts about the relativity theory, he expressed it with the words "God does not play dice." That is just another (creative) way of saying that ultimately there is certainty, but we don't know yet how to express it in formulas.Erh, yes? How do you, from that, jump to the conclusion that he believed in anything like a theistic or even deistic god?

I'll try to find the relevant quote for you; Einstein got quite pissed by people constantly trumping out those quotes and claiming he was religious or believed in god.

Religion helps to streamline thought.Oh, and that's supposed to be good?


Granted, it can be. But it can equally be dangerous and harmful. Just read the article I linked - streamlining can easily lead to oversimplification, and the believe of 'God is with us' is the most dangerous thought a human can have, because this ultimate sockpuppetry means that anything this person wants becomes automatically justified as god's will.

Where atheists philosophize, religious people can also pray and talk to God.Hm, prayer and philosophy are two entirely different things.(#) Some people think they hear him talk back directly (they are not entirely sane, IMO),Depends on your definition of 'insane'. In mine, they would not be insane, but certainly at the risk of being irrational in situations where that is harmful. (*)

some people think he replies through inspiration and intuition (like my mother)Please do not take this wrong, it is not meant as an insult: 'intuitive answers from god' is sockpuppetry: it has been shown very clearly that intuition is nothing but YOUR subconsciousness sorting information YOU have! And good thing it does: the more complex an issue, and the less clear the 'correct' position on each part of it, the more difficult is a conscious decision. Often, subconscious decisions are better in such cases. And a prime example of such difficult complex issues is 'socio-moral' topics. A pro-Eugenics stance, e.g., is very unlikely to be an intuitive decision in a mentally sane human!


__________________________________

(+) I may say that verbatim in conversations, but that is meant within the context of said conversation, which typically deals with the all-encompassing, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent christian god. Outside that context, see above.

(#) much simplified, this joke tells the differences:
What's science?
If three men in a blacked-out room look for a black cat.
What's philosophy?
If three men in a blacked-out room look for a black cat that is not there.
What's religion?
If one calls out 'Got it!' :)


(*) not to be seen as meaning that one should always be fully rational. However, one should always be AWARE when one disregards reason. To give an analogue: politicians make politica decisions. It is OK if they do not always follow the scientific evidence, because they have to factor in elements outside sicence (that have not been measured or relate to emotions). However, they should always be AWARE of the facts