I find it kind of funny how people try to hedge their bets when it comes down to it - if there is any kind of god(s) at all it likely doesn't work like that.
Can you be thrown out of heaven and into hell (and vice versa)
- Thread starter morbid42
- Start date
I find it kind of funny how people try to hedge their bets when it comes down to it - if there is any kind of god(s) at all it likely doesn't work like that.
Exactly. That doesn't stop people trying to claim that science has done exactly that though - disprove that there's a god. I'm not saying that it discredits science, just that some people don't (or won't) understand the limit of what science can do.
The idea that religion is for people dying is not a good advert for religion. Yes, many people fear dying and while dying will grasp at any straw. Yes, many people have a residual fear of eternal torture that religions have imposed on them. Those are not good things about religion.
Also, your statement is not true. Neither you, I nor anyone else know how many, but it's not all.
visions of god/s can appear fully fledged without consent in human consciousness that fully can engage the human sensory and perceptual apparatus -ie. have colour, sound, shape, can talk, have all the interactive apparatus of a living sentient autopoetically under severe stress. This is the original experiential basis of some claims as to their reality. If one measures their 'stimulus complexity sum' - how real they are compared to the benchmark of the sum of the minimum sum of forces we implicitly use to identify things such as animals and humans as 'real', and in fact present before us, the two can be exactly equivalent - such that each in fact is as real in the field of experience and consciousness as the other (some deity, some human). Eg. Use Fechner's law (ie. look for a minimum noticeable difference based on the least detectible sensory difference of 2 standard deviations across channel phenomena distributions of each entity type).
Now, it is known that similar (what are currently formally called hallucinations in the opthalmology and psychiatric fields) sensory and perceptual phenomena occur - not always of a religious association - when there are disrupted associations or processing in an individual's biological systems - eg. animated visual hallucinations as a result of lesions to the optic nerve, visual and auditory hallucinations as a result of some bodily intrusion (eg. post-surgical "delusion")- severe social performance distress (schizophrenia - eg. John Nash), or as a result of disrupted auditory cortex processing and vestibular nerve damage in musicians (tinnitus sometimes being the intermediate path)... these phenomena have varying degrees of strength of reality-congruence (ie. how many senses are engaged in an identical way as when in ordinary non-disrupted awake conscious experience) across experiences within (ie. for each individual across time) and across individuals.
That is, within the field of experience and scientific knowledge, our ordinary inbuilt automated calculus used to compute the reality of perceived sensory phenomena has - in some particular circumstances -inadequate discriminatory power to discern any difference between real and illusory objects and experience when the two have equal sensory stimulus magnitudes and complexity.
Therefore, phenomena such as those mentioned above must be measured and valued on different grounds. In the main, this is simply impact analysis to determine the relative utility entropic (adaptive gain or loss) compared to previous functional standards. Eg. does it help an individual or group to believe the obviously invisible / inaudible to others is as real as if it were not? Financially? Work capacity? Does it enable greater or lesser ability to cope with known challenges and stressors? if so, how much? etc. For example, I spotted some research just yesterday covering how the belief that "God is on our side" has utility in national defense capability. This is no real surprise, of course. What adds to resilience by whatever mechanism has real force.
Our view of what we intersubjectively declare "real" is thus intelligently (adaptively) pragmatic - ie. utiltarian.
Now, it is known that similar (what are currently formally called hallucinations in the opthalmology and psychiatric fields) sensory and perceptual phenomena occur - not always of a religious association - when there are disrupted associations or processing in an individual's biological systems - eg. animated visual hallucinations as a result of lesions to the optic nerve, visual and auditory hallucinations as a result of some bodily intrusion (eg. post-surgical "delusion")- severe social performance distress (schizophrenia - eg. John Nash), or as a result of disrupted auditory cortex processing and vestibular nerve damage in musicians (tinnitus sometimes being the intermediate path)... these phenomena have varying degrees of strength of reality-congruence (ie. how many senses are engaged in an identical way as when in ordinary non-disrupted awake conscious experience) across experiences within (ie. for each individual across time) and across individuals.
That is, within the field of experience and scientific knowledge, our ordinary inbuilt automated calculus used to compute the reality of perceived sensory phenomena has - in some particular circumstances -inadequate discriminatory power to discern any difference between real and illusory objects and experience when the two have equal sensory stimulus magnitudes and complexity.
Therefore, phenomena such as those mentioned above must be measured and valued on different grounds. In the main, this is simply impact analysis to determine the relative utility entropic (adaptive gain or loss) compared to previous functional standards. Eg. does it help an individual or group to believe the obviously invisible / inaudible to others is as real as if it were not? Financially? Work capacity? Does it enable greater or lesser ability to cope with known challenges and stressors? if so, how much? etc. For example, I spotted some research just yesterday covering how the belief that "God is on our side" has utility in national defense capability. This is no real surprise, of course. What adds to resilience by whatever mechanism has real force.
Our view of what we intersubjectively declare "real" is thus intelligently (adaptively) pragmatic - ie. utiltarian.
Last edited:
I had an ex who had a father who really messed up the family. Never a peep from him until... Cancer on his deathbed and suddenly he wants people around to make amends. Funny enough none of this is probably due to a revelation or anything, But sheer terror of what is about to happen to himself.
This to me is complete bull, The world is not a nice place either it is scary to think that if that meanness and coldness can carry over then no amount of death bed wailing is going to help. By then it is way too late and if God exists he has a four figure IQ he is not going to fall for it.
I am not claiming it to be a good advert for religion. idk what it is, it just is. I think maybe you are right about ppl grasping at straws. At least when there seems to be nothing else.
I feel/hope there is a higher power, something to turn to in dark times, because if we have to rely on humanity, we're ******.
No, because neither exist and are part of a fictional story.
Now, it is known that similar (
We are well off topic. But there is no evidence for God or God's so scientists are off to a flying start.
We are well off topic. But there is no evidence for God or God's so scientists are off to a flying start.
I can’t imagine my conscious ceasing to exist. Death being imminent would really make you question the next steps. Not surprised people become religious. In times of terror, faith in something or someone can see you through. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree. There's nothing in my above post that contradicts your view either. It is relatively easy to state a sound logical defense of religion. I don't say that mildly, I'm a logician and scientist.
I never forget the conversation I had one day with an IT student who approached me with the somewhat rhetorical question:
"I think all religion is ********. What do you think?"
To which I answered:
'religion is also a coping system. Is anything which enables people to cope successfully ever just *******?'
In the same vein, the scientific research titles referred to at the bottom of the following short entry in the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychology are quite instructive:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3287-1
e: Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science
Last edited:
Wow. I had to read this a few times but it deepened my understanding. Thank you.
I can think of an example where religion and gods are not utilitarian. In the case of children before the age of reason. Given the choice they may choose to leave it all behind and invoke no supernatural beings.
It is false hope. On balance any comfort is a paltry defence in contrast to the harm done by religion.
The alternative is rational thought and philosophy, a simple understanding of the value and limitation of our precious life, the value of looking after each other and taking simple pleasures in the world we live in and wonder at what we have learnt about the universe. I would argue this would lead to living a more meaningful life and acceptance and processing when your number is up, or a loved ones.
Anecdotally, I know widowers and parents who lost their faith following bereavement. Some have a vehement hatred of their faith following tragic life experiences. A futile exercise and waste of their time and energy, not success.
And what do we say to the countless individuals who were and are still harmed to this day 'in the name of?'; here in the UK and worldwide. What do we say in defence of religion to those who suffer genital mutilation, fear and abuse, suicide bombings or are forced to be child soldiers?
RxR will you post on the OP too please - the original OP statement?
My mother didn't. She died an atheist.
Well we've had plenty dark times and if you think relying on humanity means we're stuffed what evidence is there to suggest hopign for a "higher power" is a better option? Cos there's been not one breath of one turning up ever to help us in dark times.
Hmm. I am not sure. will have to think about this for a bit.
Uh, I suppose there has to be SOMETHING. this CANNOT be it.
If you just look at humanity, we have pulled ourselves back from the brink of nuclear war a few times. why? What stopped human beings from destroying themselves? Is it some dude in russia who held his finger off the button while he waited for a cloud of starlings to pass or smthng. No. Something held him back.
It may be easy to say 'it was god' but why god. why here. why in this time.
I don't have any answers.
Then why are you claiming that you do? You stated confidently, as an absolute fact, that whatever god you believe in took control of Stanislav Petrov and acted through him. Then said you don't have any answers.
God exists because I say they have to exist.
No human could have made a good and brave choice, therefore any good and brave choice made by a person was made by my god, therefore my god exists.
I don't have any answers.
It's not a compelling (or honest, thanks to the last part) argument that you're making.
(I was second-guessing myself over the person's name, so I had to check - I was right).
@jpod
Children who have not yet reached the age of "formal operations" (ie. the ability to reason abstractly, in Piagets development classification scheme) are known to have experienced the same phenomena in consciousness that I stated in my first sentence in post #171. Typically, the representation they describe is consistent with their cultural upbringing (ie. religious education, tribal beliefs, parent's beliefs).
e: I am also acquainted with one longitudinal case (that is currently unpublished) of evolution and marked change of those representations in a single individual over a 40 year timespan containing multiple experiences of the same type. Variations significantly depended on the type of study and level of exposure to different kinds of information - ie. knowledge the individual held at the time of each occurrence. Each occurrence (between age 9 to 52) was triggered / preconditioned by a situation of severe distress. The individual had an IQ in the +2SD range.
I am not sure which part or interpretation of the OP's question you would like me to answer. Can you clarify? I did state one way it could be interpreted (to my understanding) when I gave the house analogy. e: at post #116
Children who have not yet reached the age of "formal operations" (ie. the ability to reason abstractly, in Piagets development classification scheme) are known to have experienced the same phenomena in consciousness that I stated in my first sentence in post #171. Typically, the representation they describe is consistent with their cultural upbringing (ie. religious education, tribal beliefs, parent's beliefs).
e: I am also acquainted with one longitudinal case (that is currently unpublished) of evolution and marked change of those representations in a single individual over a 40 year timespan containing multiple experiences of the same type. Variations significantly depended on the type of study and level of exposure to different kinds of information - ie. knowledge the individual held at the time of each occurrence. Each occurrence (between age 9 to 52) was triggered / preconditioned by a situation of severe distress. The individual had an IQ in the +2SD range.
I am not sure which part or interpretation of the OP's question you would like me to answer. Can you clarify? I did state one way it could be interpreted (to my understanding) when I gave the house analogy. e: at post #116
Last edited:
On a few 'meta' / process points about discussing this subject:
1. They usually take a lot of time, and sometimes more than fits everyday needs or interests. Some people, nations, organizations also have heavy financial, occupational, etc interests in the subject - it is not industrially or national interest value-free. This limits the possibilities of a bias-free discussion in a public forum without causing side effect financial losses where none is wanted nor intended.
2. There are fixed genetic and nervous system (various biological - eg. psychoneuroendocrinological) biasses in addition to cultural and situational and phase-based ones (eg. where in the grief cycle someone is, or if they are at all) that determine how each of us reacts to anything. In practice, this means that any 'model' that is useful enough for understanding a human behaviour (including matters of religion, or in fact any belief) soon gets quite complex to the point of absurd difficulty. Plus the usual fallacies, role and status defences, cognitive style 'fencing' intrude, disputes about the relative merit or level of significance, as well as good wit, facts, and accommodation of the other's view. Our difficulties in communication about the subject are far from merely personal.
The traditional open question (for almost any still-contentious thing) - is: can this particular matter be finally simply resolved without ruffling anyone's feathers, and justify the view they significantly advanced in the first place?
In the main just so we can put those folk (and ideas) which overstep the actual facts mark (ie. waste our valuable time) firmly back within their rational, still useful, but more- limited range.
For the question we have somewhat segued around to of:
is there any value in religious (ie. organized group) belief, for anyone, at any time, or has there ever been?
I suspect we all know some of the more obvious facts which support a yes to-some-aspects of it answer. To be blunt (and somewhat banal), johnny got a job out of it, academic x1 - 300 got jobs out of it, economy y makes xx billion a year, it did help mario persist in a difficult situation and hold onto his grades and wits...etc - on a purely everyday level. Adaptive gain for some is, obvious.These gains are far from banal - the banality only arises in giving them short-form descriptive treatment for want of time.
Service delivery failures are, we know, historically notorious and beyond dispute.
In the current research clime of understanding human behaviour, one technical question (for theist theorists, I suspect) is:
can religion (per se as a construct) withstand the assaults of increasing scientific knowledge of delusions, hallucinations, etc etc with its head held high?
Last edited: