Seeing Intentionality and Purpose where there isn't any

[Jichard]

Some research explain how religious believers can come to see design and intentionality where there isn't any [background: theory of mind, in laymen's terms, involves attributing mental states to stuff (such as other humans)]:

"Supernatural believers attribute more intentions to random movement than skeptics: An fMRI study"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...6#.Vekai_lViko

"A host of research has attempted to explain why some believe in the supernatural and some do not. One suggested explanation for commonly held supernatural beliefs is that they are a by-product of theory of mind (ToM) processing. However, this does not explain why skeptics with intact ToM processes do not believe. We employed fMRI to investigate activation differences in ToM-related brain circuitries between supernatural believers (N = 12) and skeptics (N = 11) while they watched 2D animations of geometric objects moving intentionally or randomly and rated the intentionality of the animations. The ToM-related circuitries in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) were localized by contrasting intention-rating-related and control-rating-related brain activation. Compared with the skeptics, the supernatural believers rated the random movements as more intentional and had stronger activation of the ToM-related circuitries during the animation with random movement. The strength of the ToM-related activation covaried with the intentionality ratings. [emphasis added]."

""
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manusc...ive_Biases.pdf

[emphasis added]. "

[Jesse]

""
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manusc...ive_Biases.pdf

[emphasis added]. "

[/INDENT]

I don't know what the point of this is. Cognitive bias is a human trait, not a religious one. An atheist can have as many cognitive biases as any religious person. What is the point?

[shunyadragon]

I don't know what the point of this is. Cognitive bias is a human trait, not a religious one. An atheist can have as many cognitive biases as any religious person. What is the point?

and claim them as factual based on evidence

[robrecht]

But you've also claimed that your belief in God is based upon an 'independent investigation of knowledge'. Is there a contradiction here or is your belief in God irrelevant to belief in life's purpose? Or something else?

[shunyadragon]

But you've also claimed that your belief in God is based upon an 'independent investigation of knowledge'. Is there a contradiction here or is your belief in God irrelevant to belief in life's purpose? Or something else?

The difference is I do not consider the evidence for God nor intentionality of purpose to be 'factual' and objectively verifiable. My belief is more philosophical, based on the premise of the universal purpose and Revelation throughout all the history of humanity and all possible universes including ours, ie many Adams. This view negates the specialness nor exclusiveness of any one belief, religion nor church as 'catholic' nor universal. It is not based on the belief that ALL religious views including atheism are not 'factual' nor objectively verifiable paranormal nor belief is 'special' explaining life's purpose. ALL the actual evidence we have is the same regardless of belief nor world view. I am aware that any belief system including my own may be objectively considered as 'anecdotal,' and easily challenged based on the unbiased view of the objective evidence, and 'specialness' is an illusion of the ego. This actually led me to the fundamental agnostic position that in reality, 'I do not know.' I fully realize by the objective evidence our existence possibly has no purpose other than the natural course of existence.

My experience with the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' led me to the early conclusion from Buddhist inspiration that, 'Nothing is Necessary,' 'Everything is Impermanent,' and 'Clinging to any one belief at the exclusion of others' is an illusion, because everyone is most likely wrong, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

The Catholic or universal nature of anything is beyond the fallible ability of human nature. Too many different and variable beliefs claim to represent the universal, to be objectively reasonable that any one is.

[robrecht]

The difference is I do not consider the evidence for God nor intentionality of purpose to be 'factual' and objectively verifiable. My belief is more philosophical, based on the premise of the universal purpose and Revelation throughout all the history of humanity and all possible universes including ours, ie many Adams. This view negates the specialness nor exclusiveness of any one belief, religion nor church as 'catholic' nor universal. It is not based on the belief that ALL religious views including atheism are not 'factual' nor objectively verifiable paranormal nor belief is 'special' explaining life's purpose. ALL the actual evidence we have is the same regardless of belief nor world view. I am aware that any belief system including my own may be objectively considered as 'anecdotal,' and easily challenged based on the unbiased view of the objective evidence, and 'specialness' is an illusion of the ego. This actually led me to the fundamental agnostic position that in reality, 'I do not know.' I fully realize by the objective evidence our existence possibly has no purpose other than the natural course of existence.

My experience with the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' led me to the early conclusion from Buddhist inspiration that, 'Nothing is Necessary,' 'Everything is Impermanent,' and 'Clinging to any one belief at the exclusion of others' is an illusion, because everyone is most likely wrong, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

The Catholic or universal nature of anything is beyond the fallible ability of human nature. Too many different and variable beliefs claim to represent the universal, to be objectively reasonable that any one is.

So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

[shunyadragon]

So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

Fallible Reason always is the tool, but in all humility it is severely limited in making factual claims concerning 'intentionality and purpose.' My view is based to a great extent on reason, of course, and above all it is reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all beliefs that claim to represent the universal above all others, especially 'Old World' beliefs. Ancient religious beliefs and traditions are the worst reasons to believe by themselves. My conclusions, at present, my assumption of the 'best case' is whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience and take into consideration change have the greater explanatory power. For example; as far as the objective nature of our physical existence science has the best explanation. At present my belief of the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God, Creation, and Revelation the Baha'i Faith offers the best explanation, if God exists. The objective evidence is that IF Revelation is true, it is progressive and evolves throughout the history of ALL humanity, and not belief system of one Religion nor Church

[robrecht]

Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?

Fallible Reason always is the tool, but in all humility it is severely limited in making factual claims concerning 'intentionality and purpose.' My view is based to a great extent on reason, of course, and above all it is reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all beliefs that claim to represent the universal above all others, especially 'Old World' beliefs. Ancient religious beliefs and traditions are the worst reasons to believe by themselves. My conclusions, at present, my assumption of the 'best case' is whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience and take into consideration change have the greater explanatory power. For example; as far as the objective nature of our physical existence science has the best explanation. At present my belief of the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God, Creation, and Revelation the Baha'i Faith offers the best explanation, if God exists. The objective evidence is that IF Revelation is true, it is progressive and evolves throughout the history of ALL humanity, and not belief system of one Religion nor Church

A few questions pertaining to what I've underlined above:

1. At one point above you speak of 'my conclusions, at present my assumption ...' Is this a provisional conclusion that is, in fact, also an assumption, or at least based upon assumptions?

2. Is the above, at least in part, relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind?

3. I'm also curious about your conditional statements pertaining to the existence of God and revelation: 'if God exists ... IF Revelation is true'. Do you actually believe that God exists, ie, are you in fact a theist, or is this merely a hypothesis that you are entertaining, in which case I suppose you might more accurately describe yourself as an agnostic?

[Jesse]

and claim them as factual based on evidence

You are not getting my point. If you are claiming that believing in the paranormal is a cognitive bias, then there are probably thousands of atheist that share the same bias. There are atheists that believe in ghosts, for example, based on what they see as factual evidence. Again, this is a human trait. It has very little to do with religion.

[shunyadragon]

You are not getting my point. If you are claiming that believing in the paranormal is a cognitive bias, then there are probably thousands of atheist that share the same bias. There are atheists that believe in ghosts, for example, based on what they see as factual evidence. Again, this is a human trait. It has very little to do with religion.

First, to put Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism in proper context of above. No it is as rare as hen's teeth that atheists believe in Ghosts, since to believe in Ghosts would logically lead to belief in souls and some sort of life after death therefore . . .

In the Orient where there is wide belief in spirits, ghosts and non-omnipotent deities would not be atheism as such, despite wide spread disbelief in the western God(s).

I would need references where Metaphysical Naturalist atheists believe in ghosts

[shunyadragon]

How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?


A few questions pertaining to what I've underlined above:

1. At one point above you speak of 'my conclusions, at present my assumption ...' Is this a provisional conclusion that is, in fact, also an assumption, or at least based upon assumptions?

Yes, of course, it is. We all base our beliefs based on certain assumptions, including me. I consider my assumptions based on evidence of science, the history of humanity, the nature of belief claims in the world today and in history.

2. Is the above, at least in part, relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind?

No. First, my views are not that popular at all. Second if you want argue from the perspective of ad populum in the West, either Christianity or some form of materialist agnosticism/atheism. In other cultures and societies of the world, popular dominant belief is the ancient religion of that society and culture.

3. I'm also curious about your conditional statements pertaining to the existence of God and revelation: 'if God exists ... IF Revelation is true'. Do you actually believe that God exists, ie, are you in fact a theist, or is this merely a hypothesis that you are entertaining, in which case I suppose you might more accurately describe yourself as an agnostic?

I have a skeptical agnosticism as a foundation of my philosophy, because I acknowledge in humility the fallibility of my choices of belief. Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism.

my line, 'I do no know, therefore everything is in pencil.' reflects this.

[Jesse]

First, to put Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism in proper context of above. No it is as rare as hen's teeth that atheists believe in Ghosts, since to believe in Ghosts would logically lead to belief in souls and some sort of life after death therefore . . .

In the Orient where there is wide belief in spirits, ghosts and non-omnipotent deities would not be atheism as such, despite wide spread disbelief in the western God(s).

I would need references where Metaphysical Naturalist atheists believe in ghosts

I know this is hard for you, but try to grasp what I am saying, alright? I used ghosts as an "example". Here is another example, 32% of Atheists/Agnostics believe in some form of afterlife. Does that sound like it's as rare as "hens teeth"? Being an atheist does not mean you can't believe in spirits. Atheists deny the existence of God/gods, not the existence of the paranormal/supernatural. You might not want to try and speak for the atheist community.

Now, back to cognitive biases...

Source: Pacific Standard

Even Atheists Intuitively Believe in a Creator


Since the discoveries of Darwin, evidence has gradually mounted refuting the notion that the natural world is the product of a deity or other outside designer. Yet this idea remains firmly lodged in the human brain.

Just how firmly is the subject of newly published researchCognitionnew atheism movementSource

© Copyright Original Source

Anyone can play the cognitive bias game. An that is because it's human nature.

[robrecht]

I think you neglected one of my questions:

robrecht: So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

Shuny: Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

robrecht: How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?

Yes, of course, it is. We all base our beliefs based on certain assumptions, including me. I consider my assumptions based on evidence of science, the history of humanity, the nature of belief claims in the world today and in history.

OK.

No. First, my views are not that popular at all. Second if you want argue from the perspective of ad populum in the West, either Christianity or some form of materialist agnosticism/atheism. In other cultures and societies of the world, popular dominant belief is the ancient religion of that society and culture.

I did not mean to imply that your views are popular or that you were basing your views only on Western religious traditions. Rather, it does seem that your justification of your belief is based, to some extent at least, on 'whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience' and 'the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God'. Thus I ask if your viewpoint, at least in part, might be relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind, not of any one population but of your view and best explanation of evolving 'universal' beliefs of most of humanity?

I have a skeptical agnosticism as a foundation of my philosophy, because I acknowledge in humility the fallibility of my choices of belief. Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism.

my line, 'I do no know, therefore everything is in pencil.' reflects this.

This seems to be bordering on an implicitly exclusivistic claim. If it were not for Baha'i theism, you would not be a theist. No other theism would justify your belief in God. How is this different from your believing that the Baha'i theism is the only true theism?

[shunyadragon]

I think you neglected one of my questions:

robrecht: So would you say that your belief in God is ultimately based on revelation and not on fallible human reason?

Shuny: Actually, not based on Revelation, but on my best reasonable understanding of what Revelation means to the nature of our human existence and our relationship to God.

robrecht: How is that not ultimately based on your belief in revelation? If you did not believe in revelation, you could not develop your best reasonable understanding of what revelation means, right?

Of course ultimately ALL theist belief is based on the belief in Revelation. I believe all people in some way justify their experiences and reasons to believe in Revelation based on rational choices and assumptions. It is true that most people simply by default the religious belief they were raised with, but it remains that each person still uses their own rational mind to justify their belief, I find this not a good reason to believe.

I did not mean to imply that your views are popular or that you were basing your views only on Western religious traditions. Rather, it does seem that your justification of your belief is based, to some extent at least, on 'whatever beliefs reflect the greater universal of human experience' and 'the best explanation of the universal human diversity concerning God'. Thus I ask if your viewpoint, at least in part, might be relying on an ad populum assumption of some kind, not of any one population but of your view and best explanation of evolving 'universal' beliefs of most of humanity?

This is an assumption on my part based on my personal journey and experience. IF God exists, God is a more universal God than is portrayed in any one belief system out of the many diverse possible choices. It does not even in part rely on ad populum assumption of some kind. If I made my personal preference choice ad populum in my view I would a loosy goosey free will compassionate Buddhist Unitarian Universalist, and not make tough decisions concerning my belief and why.

This seems to be bordering on an implicitly exclusivistic claim. If it were not for Baha'i theism, you would not be a theist. No other theism would justify your belief in God. How is this different from your believing that the Baha'i theism is the only true theism?

No, because I do not believe it is the only 'One True Theism.' Everyone who makes a choice of belief obviously believes that their choice was the best they can make based their assumptions, like 'the sky is Carolina blue at noon on a clear cloudless 4th of July.' The problem of exclusivity is more a problem with churches and religions that claim to be the only source of Revelation and Salvation.

[robrecht]

Of course ultimately ALL theist belief is based on the belief in Revelation.

I'm not so sure of this. I think some believe in God on a purely philosophical basis. If they formulate a proof for the existence of God, you may or may not accept their proof, but they themselves need not believe in revelation. Others, such as John Scottus Eriugena and myself, believe that revelation occurs, but does not necessarily reveal anything beyond what may be known through fallible human reasoning and intuition.

I believe all people in some way justify their experiences and reasons to believe in Revelation base don rational choices. It is true that most people simply by default the religious belief they were raised with, but it remains that each person still uses their own rational mind to justify their belief.

Perhaps to justify their belief or perhaps to test, confirm, and modify their beliefs.

This is an assumption on my part based on my personal journey and experience. IF God exists, God is a more universal God than is portrayed in any one belief system out of the many diverse possible choices. It does not even in part rely on ad populum assumption of some kind. If I made and ad populum choice in my view I would a loosy goosey free will Unitarian Universalist, and not make tough decisions concerning my belief and why.

So your own beliefs about the evolution of revelation does not rely at all on the assumption of the legitimacy of evolution of revelation to the greater part of humanity throughout history? Really?

No, because I do not believe it is the only 'One True Theism.' Everyone who makes a choice of belief obviously believes that their choice was the best they can make based their assumptions, like 'the sky is Carolina blue at noon on a clear cloudless 4th of July.' The problem of exclusivity is more a problem with churches and religions that claim to be the only source of Revelation and Salvation.

But you do not believe in any other approach to theism that you think is convincing, right? Without Baha'i revelation, you would not be a theist, but rather an agnostic or atheist. This is a very different issue than whether or not you believe your choice of belief is in fact your best choice. Faced only with other forms of theism, you would not merely reject them in favor of a better form of theism, in your view, but you would reject theism in general and all other theistic beliefs and be an agnostic or atheist. Thus, in your opinion, your form of theism is indeed the one and only true form of theism, right? Every other form of theism is not worthy of theistic belief, in your opinion, correct? Other churches and religions are not so exclusivistic about their own form of theism, but rather affirm that everyone can have genuine knowledge or and a relationship with God.