The Psychology of Belief (sort of)

[Leela]

These people actually had good reason to believe that these men had magic powers, within the context of their worldview . Magic and the spirit world was already a part of their everyday lives. Adding some men they knew of in their own lives who had all sorts of stuff they had never encountered, and which could not be explained to them due to language barriers, etc., to their already-existent worldview is not very remarkable.

All it illustrates is the tendency for people to accept explanations that actually make sense to them. When you say “Truly, people will believe anything.” it is sort of demeaning-without the benefit of modern education and a first- world life experience, what else could they be expected to believe?

Your point about worldview is a good one. We should be careful not to demean these people. These people are just as intelligent as we are. They are most likely justified in believing what they believed about magic and spirit powers in light of the justificatory practices that are available to them. They tried to interpret what they experienced as best they could within their cultural context. We should not conclude that they are stupid or crazy or a bunch of liars. They are the products of a worldview that does not have the intellectual benefits of modernity.

What all this makes be wonder, however, is why such consideration of worldview is not made in assessing the historical plausibility of the 2000 year old stories of the Bible told by people of an ancient worldview. These people also had very different justificatory practice than we have available to us today, but their accounts are read as though the ancient second hand accounts referred to were witnessed and interpreted in the same way that we moderns would witness and interpret today instead of as the way the cargo-cultists witnessed and interpreted.

The most important alternative explanation to Lewis’ Lunatic, Liar, Lord trilemma is the answer suggested by the cargo cults. We are reading accounts that come from a wildly different worldview where people would not have had the same standards for justification and the same practices for recording historical events. The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us. The question of historicity of these Biblical accounts is even further muddied by the fact that scribes added and amended the texts as they were copied and passed on to us.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

Your point about worldview is a good one. We should be careful not to demean these people. These people are just as intelligent as we are. They are most likely justified in believing what they believed about magic and spirit powers in light of the justificatory practices that are available to them. They tried to interpret what they experienced as best they could within their cultural context. We should not conclude that they are stupid or crazy or a bunch of liars. They are the products of a worldview that does not have the intellectual benefits of modernity.

What all this makes be wonder, however, is why such consideration of worldview is not made in assessing the historical plausibility of the 2000 year old stories of the Bible told by people of an ancient worldview. These people also had very different justificatory practice than we have available to us today, but their accounts are read as though the ancient second hand accounts referred to were witnessed and interpreted in the same way that we moderns would witness and interpret today instead of as the way the cargo-cultists witnessed and interpreted.

The most important alternative explanation to Lewis’ Lunatic, Liar, Lord trilemma is the answer suggested by the cargo cults. We are reading accounts that come from a wildly different worldview where people would not have had the same standards for justification and the same practices for recording historical events. The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us. The question of historicity of these Biblical accounts is even further muddied by the fact that scribes added and amended the texts as they were copied and passed on to us.

Best,
Leela

That sounds like a wildly irresponsible analogy. I’m reminded of the trite saying: “people will believe anything.” Why do you think that Greco-Roman-Jewish culture of the mediterranean world 2000 years ago had practices of justification like those of the cargo cults? That just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Here’s another interesting article about the gullibility of cynical Americans, with their oh-so-modern justificatory practices of putting everyone who has beliefs different from their own in the same box:

forteantimes.com/features/articles/135/the_johnson_cult.html

"In 2004, the ‘President Johnson Cult’ saw its 40th anniversary. In early 1964, a group of natives on a tiny Pacific Island off Papua New Guinea were thrust into the world media spotlight after reports that they were refusing to pay their taxes. Instead, we were told, they were using the money to ‘buy’ then US President Lyndon Baines Johnson in the hope of luring the world’s most powerful leader to serve as their ‘Big Man’ and lead the impoverished islanders into a new Golden Age. At the time, Johnson was a popular figure throughout Australia and the Pacific as a champion of civil rights and welfare. A cornerstone of his ‘Great Society’ was the establishment of various landmark social welfare programmes in the USA such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Western media had a field day, mercilessly poking fun at the ‘wacky’ New Hanover natives; they were seen as ‘backward’, ‘primitive’, ‘irrational’ or just ‘crazy’. In a series of anonymously written articles, several major media outlets solidified the stereotype of the islanders as primitive cultists and allowed the story to flourish.

…

The ‘Johnson cult’ saga highlights the remarkable spectrum of human cultural diversity and creativity, and the perils that can befall outsiders who render superficial judgments on other cultures."

 

[Leela]

That sounds like a wildly irresponsible analogy. I’m reminded of the trite saying: “people will believe anything.” Why do you think that Greco-Roman-Jewish culture of the mediterranean world 2000 years ago had practices of justification like those of the cargo cults? That just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

I think you missed my point. I don’t assume that they had justificatory practices similar to those of the cargo cults. I am instead questing the assumption that the “Greco-Roman-Jewish culture of the mediterranean world 2000 years ago” had justificatory practices similar to our modern Western justificatory practices. We have few resources for inquiring about what the justificatory practices were like being separated by two millennia, but it is reasonable to suggest that these practices may have been as different from our own as those of the cargo cuts are while still being completely different from those of the cargo cults.

You comment about wishful thinking applied to me sounds like a non sequiter. I don’t wish that the justificatory practice of the world 2000 years ago were as bad as those of the cargo cults. I don’t have an interest in them being good or bad practices. My point is simply that we have little idea what those practices were like. You may wish that they were like our practices today, but we simply don’t know what they were like and they in fact could have been as poor or even poorer than those of the cargo cults.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Though the study shows that praying for the sick doesn’t help sick people get better, it is still an open question (based on this study) whether prayer helps the person who is doing the praying.

This is a gross generalisation! Do you really think one study of one particular disease in one place during one short period of time establishes a universal law?

 

[donsnow]

This is a gross generalisation! Do you really think one study of one particular disease in one place during one short period of time establishes a universal law?

It sure wouldn’t establish an adequate data base.

 

[donsnow]

I think we miss the point, when we try to assess past cultures. I think it’s not as important how we see them as it is important how they see, or would see, us. If we uproot our culture from the past, then our culture has no foundation. And, without a cultural and social foundation, our culture and all its science will fall. Again.

Time after time, aeon after aeon, great civilizations arise and then fall. So will ours and it will fall all the quicker, for lack of a foundation, if secular and religious folks keep trying to replace or muddy our past with ‘modernity’ etc. imho.

 

[Thing]

Cargo Cults are a belief system in the South Pacific.

From damninteresting.com/john-frum-and-the-cargo-cults

*Every year on February 15th, natives of Tanna Island in the Republic of Vanuatu hold a grand celebration in honor of an imaginary man named John Frum. Villagers clothe themselves in homemade US Army britches, paint “USA” on their bare chests and backs, and run a replica of Old Glory up the flagpole alongside the Marine Corps Emblem and the state flag of Georgia. Barefoot soldiers then march in perfect step in the shadow of Yasur, the island’s active volcano, with red-tipped bamboo “rifles” slung over their shoulders. February 15th is known as John Frum day on Tanna Island, and these activities are the islanders’ holiest religious service.
*

and from Smithsonian smithsonianmag.com/people-places/john.html

*The island’s John Frum movement is a classic example of what anthropologists have called a “cargo cult”—many of which sprang up in villages in the South Pacific during World War II, when hundreds of thousands of American troops poured into the islands from the skies and seas. As anthropologist Kirk Huffman, who spent 17 years in Vanuatu, explains: “You get cargo cults when the outside world, with all its material wealth, suddenly descends on remote, indigenous tribes.” The locals don’t know where the foreigners’ endless supplies come from and so suspect they were summoned by magic, sent from the spirit world. To entice the Americans back after the war, islanders throughout the region constructed piers and carved airstrips from their fields. They prayed for ships and planes to once again come out of nowhere, bearing all kinds of treasures: jeeps and washing machines, radios and motorcycles, canned meat and candy.

*Read more: smithsonianmag.com/people-places/john.html#ixzz0jEdkXmxK

I bring this up as an example of how and why religious beliefs can be started (thus the title of the thread). Truly, people will believe anything. I actually find this rather amazing and am interested in what others think.

I suppose its a lesson to us all, especially to all the atheists out there. These people were very very quick thinkers and super practical too. They built airstrips… airstrips, in preparation for a second coming of Americans. They did not know how to communicate with the Americans so they decided to communicate through their hearts and send an invitation to the Americans through any possible means at their disposal.

But what if it was an atheist on one of those islands, what would he do. Mope around all day under a bush? He certainly would not be building airstrips.

And what happens if the Americans did happen to return and fly over the island. They would see the airstrip and see a great welcome awaiting them. And they would land.

But what about our atheists island. Sadly, the Americans would flyover and not see any airstrip nor would they see the atheist under the bush, he was not prepared to welcome the Americans when they returned……

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::takeoff:

 

[Leela]

This is a gross generalisation! Do you really think one study of one particular disease in one place during one short period of time establishes a universal law?

You are suggesting that prayer may

(1) work better in some locations than others

(2) work better on some diseases than others

(3) work only when done for some unknown minimum amount of time.

It seems that you are correct and more research is needed. Do you think the Catholic Church may be interested in funding such research so that we can better understand the power of prayer?

 

[jmcrae]

You are suggesting that prayer may

(1) work better in some locations than others

(2) work better on some diseases than others

(3) work only when done for some unknown minimum amount of time.

It seems that you are correct and more research is needed. Do you think the Catholic Church may be interested in funding such research so that we can better understand the power of prayer?

I think that every human being on earth should volunteer to be a study subject, and try praying in the morning for half an hour and in the evening for half an hour, every day for a month, and see what happens.

 

[Leela]

I think that every human being on earth should volunteer to be a study subject, and try praying in the morning for half an hour and in the evening for half an hour, every day for a month, and see what happens.

As a Catholic, do you think you could encourage your Church to fund such studies about prayer?

 

[jmcrae]

As a Catholic, do you think you could encourage your Church to fund such studies about prayer?

Not really, no. I think everyone should make the experiment for themselves, and see what happens. It’s free to do - you don’t need money to pray.

 

[HelenaMT]

Your point about worldview is a good one. We should be careful not to demean these people. These people are just as intelligent as we are. They are most likely justified in believing what they believed about magic and spirit powers in light of the justificatory practices that are available to them. They tried to interpret what they experienced as best they could within their cultural context. We should not conclude that they are stupid or crazy or a bunch of liars. They are the products of a worldview that does not have the intellectual benefits of modernity.

yup

What all this makes be wonder, however, is why such consideration of worldview is not made in assessing the historical plausibility of the 2000 year old stories of the Bible told by people of an ancient worldview. These people also had very different justificatory practice than we have available to us today, but their accounts are read as though the ancient second hand accounts referred to were witnessed and interpreted in the same way that we moderns would witness and interpret today instead of as the way the cargo-cultists witnessed and interpreted.

This has a lot more validity in reference to the Old Testament, I think. I also think that more Christians than you might think approach Biblical stories with a mind to how the authors’ worldviews might have shaped the way they recorded their words (at least, that has been MY experience).

There is a difference between the civilization that Christianity was born into -one with many literate and educated people, a culture with a knowledge of philosophy, and in contact with other cultures and religions-and the isolated tribes who form cargo cults. They may not have been “moderns”, but neither were they like those tribes.

The most important alternative explanation to Lewis’ Lunatic, Liar, Lord trilemma is the answer suggested by the cargo cults. We are reading accounts that come from a wildly different worldview where people would not have had the same standards for justification and the same practices for recording historical events. The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us. The question of historicity of these Biblical accounts is even further muddied by the fact that scribes added and amended the texts as they were copied and passed on to us.

Biblical study is so agenda driven on both sides (whether purposeful, or just natural unconscious bias)that there is still plenty to debate over just how much was added and changed along the way. It doesn’t even seem altogether clear yet who exactly wrote the gospels and whether they were earlier or later than assumed and in what order, or what value other more recently discovered gospels had to ancient Christians.

However, the most important information in the gospels are the words and deeds of Jesus-His teaching, His example of mercy and forgiveness, and His promise of life beyond the flesh. Even if you leave out the healings, exorcisms, and walking on water, something very valuable remains.

This is not at all like a cargo cult in that it answers a need all of us have as humans-for love and acceptance, and for freedom from fear of mortality. Whether you believe in it or not, the needs met by Christianity far outstrip the needs met by those tribes adding another supernatural being to an already lengthy list of them. That seems much more comparable to the ancient Romans incorporating the gods of their neighbors while still retaining their own than to Christians abandoning a bleaker worldview for a more hopeful one.

Cargo cults saw something they interpreted as supernatural because no other explanation was available. I’m not quite sure what that comparison does in relation to the gospels. If it’s that they witnessed events that they saw as supernatural, it begs the question, what exactly did they witness? What was there for them to misinterpret? In the Old Testament the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea are things that could have been interpreted as supernatural but have more mundane possibilities. But the healings, the exorcisms, the resurrection, what was actually witnessed?

Making the argument that they are similar to the cargo cultists leads to the suggestion that they *did *witness something they felt the need to record, just incorrectly. In the case of Jesus, unlike the Red Sea parting, I don’t see where that leads.

Either people were healed by Him or they weren’t and it was simply fabricated, either by the gospel writers or the first “witness” to tell the tale to them. So when you say “The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us.”, it doesn’t seem to hold true. In non-believer perspective they were either liars or lied TO, but either way, very similar to us moderns, in that they either wanted to accept a story that offered them hope, or wanted to aggrandize themselves with an interesting tale.

 

[donsnow]

yup

This has a lot more validity in reference to the Old Testament, I think. I also think that more Christians than you might think approach Biblical stories with a mind to how the authors’ worldviews might have shaped the way they recorded their words (at least, that has been MY experience).

There is a difference between the civilization that Christianity was born into -one with many literate and educated people, a culture with a knowledge of philosophy, and in contact with other cultures and religions-and the isolated tribes who form cargo cults. They may not have been “moderns”, but neither were they like those tribes.

Biblical study is so agenda driven on both sides (whether purposeful, or just natural unconscious bias)that there is still plenty to debate over just how much was added and changed along the way. It doesn’t even seem altogether clear yet who exactly wrote the gospels and whether they were earlier or later than assumed and in what order, or what value other more recently discovered gospels had to ancient Christians.

However, the most important information in the gospels are the words and deeds of Jesus-His teaching, His example of mercy and forgiveness, and His promise of life beyond the flesh. Even if you leave out the healings, exorcisms, and walking on water, something very valuable remains.

This is not at all like a cargo cult in that it answers a need all of us have as humans-for love and acceptance, and for freedom from fear of mortality. Whether you believe in it or not, the needs met by Christianity far outstrip the needs met by those tribes adding another supernatural being to an already lengthy list of them. That seems much more comparable to the ancient Romans incorporating the gods of their neighbors while still retaining their own than to Christians abandoning a bleaker worldview for a more hopeful one.

Cargo cults saw something they interpreted as supernatural because no other explanation was available. I’m not quite sure what that comparison does in relation to the gospels. If it’s that they witnessed events that they saw as supernatural, it begs the question, what exactly did they witness? What was there for them to misinterpret? In the Old Testament the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea are things that could have been interpreted as supernatural but have more mundane possibilities. But the healings, the exorcisms, the resurrection, what was actually witnessed?

Making the argument that they are similar to the cargo cultists leads to the suggestion that they *did *witness something they felt the need to record, just incorrectly. In the case of Jesus, unlike the Red Sea parting, I don’t see where that leads.

Either people were healed by Him or they weren’t and it was simply fabricated, either by the gospel writers or the first “witness” to tell the tale to them. So when you say “The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us.”, it doesn’t seem to hold true. In non-believer perspective they were either liars or lied TO, but either way, very similar to us moderns, in that they either wanted to accept a story that offered them hope, or wanted to aggrandize themselves with an interesting tale.

Helena, you and Leela are too far out, for me. I believe the Gospels are true, and I am not skeptical about the Holy Bible. I reserve my skepticism for skeptics and other sophists.

 

[tonyrey]

You are suggesting that prayer may

(1) work better in some locations than others

(2) work better on some diseases than others

(3) work only when done for some unknown minimum amount of time.

It seems that you are correct and more research is needed. Do you think the Catholic Church may be interested in funding such research so that we can better understand the power of prayer?

I think there is so much evidence of answers to prayer for people - regardless of what they believe - that the money would be far better spent on helping those in need.

Life is so incredibly complex I don’t believe we could ever have enough knowledge to decide how, when, where or for whom prayers should be answered. We would be presuming to have divine insight into all the consequences. With the wisdom of hindsight it is often clear that sometimes no answer is the best answer! Even to allow a person to die may prove to be a blessing in disguise.

 

[Leela]

I think there is so much evidence of answers to prayer for people - regardless of what they believe - that the money would be far better spent on helping those in need.

I am not aware of any convincing evidence. We have anecdotes but no systematic study.

We have the facts that A happened then B happened, but no one has established that A causes B where A is prayer and B is healing.

I think we should want to know whether or not prayer works as advertised and if so, how to maximize its effectiveness. Why wouldn’t you welcome such research? Even if you are convinced that prayer works, wouldn’t you support research to demonstrate that fact and convince others to pray? (I suspect that you have a suspicion that prayer doesn’t actually work to heal people, which is why nobody prays for amputees to grow new limbs.)

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

I am not aware of any convincing evidence. We have anecdotes but no systematic study.

We have the facts that A happened then B happened, but no one has established that A causes B where A is prayer and B is healing.

I think we should want to know whether or not prayer works as advertised and if so, how to maximize its effectiveness. Why wouldn’t you welcome such research? Even if you are convinced that prayer works, wouldn’t you support research to demonstrate that fact and convince others to pray? (I suspect that you have a suspicion that prayer doesn’t actually work to heal people, which is why nobody prays for amputees to grow new limbs.)

Best,
Leela

If you want to be convinced of whether prayer actually works, or not, you need to try it for yourself. Since it doesn’t cost anything to try it for yourself, I don’t see the need of spending money on a study. Also, prayer is not a machine of some kind that produces a particular product; it is a form of communication. At its most basic, prayer is me and God, talking together.

 

[Swan]

Your point about worldview is a good one. We should be careful not to demean these people. These people are just as intelligent as we are. They are most likely justified in believing what they believed about magic and spirit powers in light of the justificatory practices that are available to them. They tried to interpret what they experienced as best they could within their cultural context. We should not conclude that they are stupid or crazy or a bunch of liars. They are the products of a worldview that does not have the intellectual benefits of modernity.

What all this makes be wonder, however, is why such consideration of worldview is not made in assessing the historical plausibility of the 2000 year old stories of the Bible told by people of an ancient worldview. These people also had very different justificatory practice than we have available to us today, but their accounts are read as though the ancient second hand accounts referred to were witnessed and interpreted in the same way that we moderns would witness and interpret today instead of as the way the cargo-cultists witnessed and interpreted.

The most important alternative explanation to Lewis’ Lunatic, Liar, Lord trilemma is the answer suggested by the cargo cults. We are reading accounts that come from a wildly different worldview where people would not have had the same standards for justification and the same practices for recording historical events. The gospel writers were not lunatics or liars as we understand the terms today, but they were very different from us. The question of historicity of these Biblical accounts is even further muddied by the fact that scribes added and amended the texts as they were copied and passed on to us.

Best,
Leela

Leela - you keep taking the answers right out of my mouth - which is good since I’m not on CAF very often. One of my points was that the world is full of folks who have wildly diverse spiritual beliefs; my intent was not to mock or make fun of any of them. People, be they individuals or groups, tend to try and make experiences fit into their “box” of beliefs so that their experiences and beliefs fit together (sometimes this isn’t possible and people have to reinterpret their beliefs and make adjustment accordingly), If a Hindu and Christian both have a similar spiritual experience, they will both most likely explain it (file it, if you will) through the window of the beliefs they hold (attribute it to a certain god, etc). Does this make one any less valid than the other?

All beliefs have some basis, but those beliefs are often based on conclusions reached without full data. In this case, the tribes don’t/didn’t understand about air travel, etc…, the same way we used to view epileptics are being demon possessed - i.e., we based our decision on imperfect/incomplete knowledge. And see how easy that is to do. Our minds demand that we “fit” things in - we hate cognitive dissonance. But here’s the thing: as humans our knowledge and ability to “know” everything on a cosmic level is extremely limited - so all of our decisions about “spiritual” matters will always be based on less that perfect knowledge - just like these people. No matter how much we think we “know”, if we are truly honest we’ll have to admit that there are somethings that are just beyond our current understanding. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this, but most “religious” people do, at least in my experience.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not aware of any convincing evidence. We have anecdotes but no systematic study.

 

[tonyrey]

But here’s the thing: as humans our knowledge and ability to “know” everything on a cosmic level is extremely limited - so all of our decisions about “spiritual” matters will always be based on less that perfect knowledge - just like these people.

Does scientific knowledge differ in that respect from knowledge of spiritual reality? Or do scientists have privileged insight and understanding?

No matter how much we think we “know”, if we are truly honest we’ll have to admit that there are some things that are just beyond our current understanding. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this, but most “religious” people do, at least in my experience.

Do you think most religious people claim to understand the nature of God, the basis of free will, the origin of consciousness, how the universe was created and how miracles are performed?

 

[Leela]

Have you examined any reports of cures from the medical bureau in Lourdes?

As others have noted…all those crutches and braces and wheelchairs, and yet, still not a single glass eye, false limb, or toupee among them. Kinda makes you wonder, why doesn’t God ever heal amputees?

I’ve spent as much time investigating those miracles as you probably have in investigating the miracles that millions personally attest to witnessing performed by the so-called living god Sai Baba.

A cure which is instantaneous and inexplicable requires a superior alternative explanation - unless one rejects miracles on principle.
Your surmise is wrong because there is medical evidence of fractured bones which have fused instantaneously.

…so it must have been The Thing That Explains The Things For Which There Is No Known Explanation! By definition that simply has to be right!

Do you think it is the same thing as The Thing That Makes The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker?