

Research shows that people project their own beliefs onto God. - AndrewDucker
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

======
jhancock
We didn't need a new research report to tell us this.

~~~
mbubb
Right.

It is interesting how (in the European and American context) we have not
developed this idea much from the Enlightenment (Spinoza, Pascal, etc). We
know this idea and yet cannot get past it.

The realization does not shake the belief itself, unless it was very weak to
start with. The German philosopher, Ernst Bloch - I think in his work "Atheism
in Christianity" - insisted the the 'atheist is very close to the true
believer' in the sense that both are responding to the same impulse.

Darwin doesn't wreck my idea of the possibility of a God. And I do not mean in
the sense of "Intelligent Design" or whatever it is called.

It seems hard to accept that if there is 'an allpowerful creator being
thingie' that it would be completely beyond our ken. And any approximation
would be an approximation of something infinite and thus as good as nothing.
Less than the shadows on the cave in Plato's image.

This idea is at least as old as the combined JudeoChristian tradition.
Arguably (and I am not competent to argue this - just was taught it years ago
by a Franciscan so take it for what itis worth), arguably the oldest book of
the Hebrew Scriptures is Job. The oldest text. And to me the answer to this
idea is in that book. (and if you happen to be in NYC check out Wm Blake's Job
prints in the Morgan library exhibit)

That idea of god is incomprehensible, terrifying and at turns mild, beatific.
Like those alternately anthrophagous and beatific buddhas on Tibetan or
Mongolian tapestries.

Over the years a few things I have read have given me the same chill as the
lines of God responding to Job from the whirlwind (Stephen Mitchell's
translation). Like the ending of "King Lear" or Prince Arjuna looking over the
plains at his immense enemy spread before him but then realizing his
charioteer is Krishna. Moments of almost obliterating awe - the realization of
the absolute otherness of creation of which we are a part yet separate through
consciousness trying to get back...

Which gets to why I think Bloch was right. The atheist and the true believer
they are human responses to the same impulse.

I do not get the in between - ie articles like this - is this a new idea?

------
sili
"This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's
beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are
already facing."

I have long thought that one of the major downside of any religion is that it
radicalizes people. No mater how much peace and tolerance it preaches, dogma
always takes over.

~~~
toadpipe
It can increase people's commitment to compassion too. Like Lisp or Forth, it
is an amplifier. Actually placebos are a better analogy. Both are imaginary
social support that allows a body to commit resources that would otherwise be
held in reserve.

------
nathanb
This isn't surprising...people tend to project their own beliefs onto
everybody, and unlike our fellow humans God doesn't give us any opportunities
to disabuse ourselves of this notion.

------
Goladus
The question this should make people ask is: where are these beliefs coming
from, if not from religious teaching?

Often both sides of a controversial argument are content to blame God for the
position of the religious side. It's easier to simply write off your opponent
as an unreasonable religious nutcase rather than making a legitimate attempt
to look for the real motivation. It's almost as easy to attack religious
fallacies as it is to use them for support.

------
anigbrowl
It is somewhat interesting for noting _why_ this is the case, eg fMRI
observations showing that praying activates the same brain regions as used
when chatting to friends.

Didn't read the original paper yet, but I'd like to see some research on how
these beliefs may shift at different times. For example, someone might say
it's wrong to steal on Monday, but on Friday they might embezzle some money
while murmuring 'god helps those who help themselves', balancing it out with
an hour or two of being a poor sinner on Sunday before deciding they've been
forgiven at the end of it. Stories of large-scale financial fraudsters often
reveal a pattern of 'doubling down' and increasing the fraud in an attempt to
use the money as capital for a superficially legitimate scheme designed to
yield a large profit and allow the return of the money they 'borrowed'.

Julian Jaynes theorized that consciousness as we know it today developed out
of a kind of low-grade schizophrenia in which people internalized social mores
as religious voices prior to the kind of self-reflection we take for granted
today.

------
teeja
Much like how we project our ideas about our ideal love-object onto the people
we fall in love with. Which, of course, no person can ever live up to.

"God" is a very flexible object of contemplation. As a word, its entire
meaning is dependent on context. To a great extent that context is _very_
private. Yet most of humanity naively bandies it about as if we're already
agreed on what it means. As a meme it's certainly one of the most, if not the
most, successful that's ever grabbed hold of us. For whatever purposes.

------
crux
Is this surprising or concerning? This article seems to presume a belief or
decision making process wherein the subject has a belief, but has not thought
about what God would think on the issue, and so decides to address the
question by performing an act of intuition—at which point God's opinion is
intuited to be similar to the subject's own.

I would be awfully surprised if religious people didn't tend to have opinions,
religious and moral, that tend to track with each other and influence each
other.

------
gcheong
This reminded me of something from a Steve Yegge rant:

"Now do a Google search for "perl religion". Looky looky, the first link is a
Slashdot interview with Larry entitled: Larry Wall on Perl, Religion, and...,
in which Larry talks extensively about his conversations with God, in which
God evidently explains to Larry that He only likes Perl programmers. "

<http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ancient-languages-perl>

------
presidentender
I tend to think that a lot of religious fanaticism is a result of positive-
feedback loops between sect members. God is defined by the authorities in a
group, per this article; the rest of the group internalizes this God and
projects their own beliefs, again per this article; they share these beliefs
among themselves and with the religious leadership, and the cycle starts over.

(I am a Christian, in case that colors your interpretation of this comment).

------
symesc
Ramen.

------
sketerpot
In other news, the world continues to rotate. It's nice to have a proper study
saying it, though.

