Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes it would be interesting to explore the idea even deeper, including the impact on different types of people/personalities. Though practically that may be harder to get data on.
One thing I have previously mentioned in this thread, but has not been replied to much, is better mental health tools being taught to children in schools from when they are young. So I would be interested in what impact that has. For example how would that affect their 'wiring' growing up?
Interesting, you just made me challenge a bias I hold about religious education of children. I prefer that children not be taught a religion as fact until they are adults, however for those who might (mental health) be wired to benefit from a religion, it could be a detriment to lack the early exposure. It would make more sense to try to find ways to identify the 'wiring' and align candidates with the most suitable to them, perhaps.
If you are referring to me, Peter, you are missing a few data points. My prior view of Reality at the time was based entirely on materialism as pragmatic and unshakable as that of any atheist today because that is all that was even remotely reasonable for me to consider part of Reality.
This is why the encounter was so earth-shattering and disruptive to my sane, sober, and rational view of Reality. The encounter was also a sane, sober experience of an unmistakable but thoroughly unfamiliar and indescribable Reality that did not resemble the only one I knew.
I was not under the effect of ANY drug or substance. I certainly had no unconscious or conscious bias or desire to believe, or even imagine, let alone confirm that a God existed. And I had years of experience in sober conscious control of altered states and had developed a reliable technique for distinguishing what was from my own unconscious, or what was a dream state.
My knowledge of the possible alternative reasons for such an unexpected mental experience is and was extensive. But I could discern no basis for doubting or dismissing it and no reason to distrust its reality. There still isn't and I have acquired significant scientific knowledge and extrapolated hypotheses that support the plausibility of its authenticity.
The problem with someone themselves trying to internally distinguish if their perceptions are biased is:
-If their perceptions are unbiased, their internal verification will be unbiased, and the result of the verification will be reliable.
-If their perceptions are biased, their internal verification will be biased, and the result of the verification will be unreliable.
Surely you can see an entity trying to internally self diagnose whether it is accurate, has a problem. That which is being questioned for accuracy, is also that which is being used to verify it's accuracy (your internal perception).
But that is not my biggest issue. Let me try to write it out as explicitly and technically as possible:
You were an atheist, who could not see how your understanding might be wrong. Call this state A
You then had an experience. As a result of that experience you became religious and can't see how your understanding might be wrong. Call this state B.
How can you preclude that you will again have an experience that will give you another understanding, that will leave you in a new state C? Surely you see the limitations of being in state A, or B, or C? And that from within the state, you may not be able to see the inaccuracies of the state.
Interesting, you just made me challenge a bias I hold about religious education of children. I prefer that children not be taught a religion as fact until they are adults, however for those who might (mental health) be wired to benefit from a religion, it could be a detriment to lack the early exposure. It would make more sense to try to find ways to identify the 'wiring' and align candidates with the most suitable to them, perhaps.
I am not sure I would support teaching things as fact, that have not been verified as fact. I think there are ethical problems with that. I would support teaching religion as a tool, or as options (this is what Christians think, this is what Muslims think, this is what atheists think, you choose).
However that is a moot point. Historically most parent have been religious, and their children have grown up with their religion. So my question is how many children were indoctrinated with religion as fact growing up, where they would have benefitted for a more rational upbringing to help their mental health? That is a question your post made me think of.
Separate questions I have - how do we find out if children are 'wired' for religion? And for those that are wired in such a way, is religion the only thing that would fit their wiring? Is there a more rational option that would also satisfy their wiring? That is really my original question, put in different words.
Let me give you an example, with made up numbers:
-Without secular mental health options, 47% of children are wired to need religion. Keeping them away from religion would be detrimental to their mental health.
-With secular mental health options, only 30% of children are wired to need religion. The other 17% find what they need in secular mental health tools, without the need for religion.
-Or perhaps the number is 60% or something else
What will the change in percentage in the above be? That was what I wanted to explore in this thread.
The problem with someone themselves trying to internally distinguish if their perceptions are biased is:
-If their perceptions are unbiased, their internal verification will be unbiased, and the result of the verification will be reliable.
-If their perceptions are biased, their internal verification will be biased, and the result of the verification will be unreliable.
Surely you can see an entity trying to internally self diagnose whether it is accurate, has a problem. That which is being questioned for accuracy, is also that which is being used to verify it's accuracy (your internal perception).
But that is not my biggest issue. Let me try to write it out as explicitly and technically as possible:
You were an atheist, who could not see how your understanding might be wrong. Call this state A
You then had an experience. As a result of that experience you became religious and can't see how your understanding might be wrong. Call this state B.
How can you preclude that you will again have an experience that will give you another understanding, that will leave you in a new state C? Surely you see the limitations of being in state A, or B, or C? And that from within the state, you may not be able to see the inaccuracies of the state.
Your limited knowledge about the biases in human perception and reasoning is faulty and presumes it is an endemic and unavoidable feature and not idiosyncratic based on knowable factors. Except for some of the perceptual illusions, virtually all the cognitive biases and unreliable processing are idiosyncratic and derived from situational factors or interference with brain function by disease, substances, or trauma.
I know the factors that led to my early atheism and they are the same ones that most atheists suffer from - our classically and operantly conditioned learning in a physical reality. It is normally a very solid basis for interacting with reality and that can make it difficult to accept any non-physical and non-observable aspects of Reality. It usually takes strong external learning and influences to acquire and accept any such aspects of Reality, as in religious indoctrination at an early age, etc. I escaped any such strong indoctrination.
I know the kinds of situational and circumstantial factors that can make our perceptions of our experiences unreliable and I suffered from no brain disorder, substance interference, or trauma. I had years of experience with altered states under sober conscious control during meditation so there was no need or possibility to doubt my experiences.
Your unreasonable belief in the endemic unreliability of human cognitive processing stems from your limited and flawed knowledge of the existence of unreliable perceptions and interpretations which is something you foolishly seem to think is never avoidable or detectable. This leads to the unreasoned doubt of your own perceptions and experiences whether or not any known factors exist to suggest such unreliability is present.
Your limited knowledge about the biases in human perception and reasoning is faulty and presumes it is an endemic and unavoidable feature and not idiosyncratic based on knowable factors. Except for some of the perceptual illusions, virtually all the cognitive biases and unreliable processing are idiosyncratic and derived from situational factors or interference with brain function by disease, substances, or trauma.
I know the factors that led to my early atheism and they are the same ones that most atheists suffer from - our classically and operantly conditioned learning in a physical reality. It is normally a very solid basis for interacting with reality and that can make it difficult to accept any non-physical and non-observable aspects of Reality. It usually takes strong external learning and influences to acquire and accept any such aspects of Reality, as in religious indoctrination at an early age, etc. I escaped any such strong indoctrination.
I know the kinds of situational and circumstantial factors that can make our perceptions of our experiences unreliable and I suffered from no brain disorder, substance interference, or trauma. I had years of experience with altered states under sober conscious control during meditation so there was no need or possibility to doubt my experiences.
Your unreasonable belief in the endemic unreliability of human cognitive processing stems from your limited and flawed knowledge of the existence of unreliable perceptions and interpretations which is something you foolishly seem to think is never avoidable or detectable. This leads to the unreasoned doubt of your own perceptions and experiences whether or not any known factors exist to suggest such unreliability is present.
Part of your argument is appeal to the authority of MysticPHD the psychologist, which I lost respect for when you also spent months appealing to the authority of MysticPHD the physicist, which is my area of expertise. So I'm interested in actual arguments and logic and reason and evidence, not appeals to your authority.
As for the rest, how do you know the altered states you experienced were an accurate reflection of reality? Now if there was separate evidence of altered states being an accurate reflection of reality, you argument would hold. But there isn't such evidence. Hence it is a possibility that the state you experienced was not an accurate reflection of reality.
Can you point to the psychology studies that say altered states where God is perceived, is an accurate reflection of reality?
For any reader interested in the prevalence of bias, here is a read about confirmation bias I found interesting. I will just quote the concluding paragraph.
Quote:
Finally, I have argued that the confirmation bias is pervasive and strong and have reviewed evidence that I believe supports this claim. The possibility will surely occur to the thoughtful reader that what I have done is itself an illustration of the confirmation bias at work. I can hardly rule the possibility out to do so would be to deny the validity of what I am claiming to be a general rule.
Now that is a author I can respect, because not only have they come to a conclusion, but they also understand the limits of their conclusion.
Written by Raymond S. Nickerson in Review of General Psychology
I am not sure I would support teaching things as fact, that have not been verified as fact. I think there are ethical problems with that. I would support teaching religion as a tool, or as options (this is what Christians think, this is what Muslims think, this is what atheists think, you choose).
However that is a moot point. Historically most parent have been religious, and their children have grown up with their religion. So my question is how many children were indoctrinated with religion as fact growing up, where they would have benefitted for a more rational upbringing to help their mental health? That is a question your post made me think of.
Separate questions I have - how do we find out if children are 'wired' for religion? And for those that are wired in such a way, is religion the only thing that would fit their wiring? Is there a more rational option that would also satisfy their wiring? That is really my original question, put in different words.
Let me give you an example, with made up numbers:
-Without secular mental health options, 47% of children are wired to need religion. Keeping them away from religion would be detrimental to their mental health.
-With secular mental health options, only 30% of children are wired to need religion. The other 17% find what they need in secular mental health tools, without the need for religion.
-Or perhaps the number is 60% or something else
What will the change in percentage in the above be? That was what I wanted to explore in this thread.
I'm with you in this curiosity and it's objective, how to develop testing for each aspect could PROBABLY, only be established using a large quantity of empirical observation, especially considering the vast opportunity for minute contributing factors that could skew the results. I.e. unplanned epiphanies.
Can you point to the psychology studies that say altered states where God is perceived, is an accurate reflection of reality?
Unlike the post where I could detect your sincerity, this one reveals your disingenuousness starkly. You know full well there are no scientific papers in any field that would assert that God is an accurate reflection of reality! Even the God Helmet papers were dismissive of any such interpretations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600
For any reader interested in the prevalence of bias, here is a read about confirmation bias I found interesting. I will just quote the concluding paragraph.
Now that is a author I can respect, because not only have they come to a conclusion, but they also understand the limits of their conclusion.
Perhaps you can provide the application of this confirmation bias logic to my scenario. What kind of experience do you think it would take to OVERCOME my confirmation bias and absolute conviction in physical materialism as the basis of reality? Remember the subject is a 30+-year-old confirmed atheist from an extremely early age who not only resisted but managed to avoid religious indoctrination.
The subject has been practicing meditation and martial arts striving to achieve deeper and deeper altered states for over 18 of those 30+years. He is a disciplined martial artist and extremely zealous in his pursuit of excellence in whatever he does. He diligently retains sober conscious control over his experiences in altered states. He uses his ability to alter and control the content as a sign of what is content from his own subconscious.
He considers any content experienced that he cannot control as something inexplicable but possibly some unknown aspect of reality. What kind of misinterpreted experience could conceivably instantly erase his confirmation bias toward atheism and propel him on a multiple-decade journey of discovery to explain to his intellect how what he experienced could be possible???
Unlike the post where I could detect your sincerity, this one reveals your disingenuousness starkly. You know full well there are no scientific papers in any field that would assert that God is an accurate reflection of reality! Even the God Helmet papers were dismissive of any such interpretations.
Perhaps you can provide the application of this confirmation bias logic to my scenario. What kind of experience do you think it would take to OVERCOME my confirmation bias and absolute conviction in physical materialism as the basis of reality? Remember the subject is a 30+-year-old confirmed atheist from an extremely early age who not only resisted but managed to avoid religious indoctrination.
The subject has been practicing meditation and martial arts striving to achieve deeper and deeper altered states for over 18 of those 30+years. He is a disciplined martial artist and extremely zealous in his pursuit of excellence in whatever he does. He diligently retains sober conscious control over his experiences in altered states. He uses his ability to alter and control the content as a sign of what is content from his own subconscious.
He considers any content experienced that he cannot control as something inexplicable but possibly some unknown aspect of reality. What kind of misinterpreted experience could conceivably instantly erase his confirmation bias toward atheism and propel him on a multiple-decade journey of discovery to explain to his intellect how what he experienced could be possible???
"what he experienced". Curiosity, was this a singular event? Multiple? or Ongoing?
"what he experienced". Curiosity, was this a singular event? Multiple? or Ongoing?
Apologies, I just saw that you pre-emptively answered this on another thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
