Please Challenge This Hypothesis

[POI]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

[Data]

No. I think we all continue to make type 1 errors all the time. But these errors are benign, or not usually harmful. Hence, we will always make them. We invoke agency, in both 'good' and 'bad', in error, quite often. I think this is, in part, why I still (could) be a deist at times. After much study, my logic tells me nothing intelligent, or that any agency that desires me, is there. But the "evolutionary" part within me always still makes me wonder.

You dismiss the dictionary definition of a god as being anything or anyone worshipped but you accept the dictionary definition of agency as being the sense of control that you feel in your life, your capacity to influence your own thoughts and behavior, and have faith in your ability to handle a wide range of tasks and situations.

Three things come to mind. Shintoism, superstition and Alcoholics Anonymous. People assign control. They either take responsibility or delegate it.

Of course, it's proven.

Thanks. So, I guess we may be done here.

Since before we began, yes. The reason is that you can't accept the fact that God could be proven to anyone personally, and since you don't fully understand what gods are you can't understand that even if the god didn't exist it could have the same desired purpose and outcome, proving itself to the adherent. To you the God or gods must be proven as science or they've just made an error. Most people who care about God(s) either unbelievers like you or believers like Jim and Tammy Baker get what they want out of God(s) whether or not they know it or the God(s) exist. Most of them don't care as is evident by assumptions - errors - like the one you and millions of believers make every day. Because, you have a narrow and dogmatic perspective of a pragmatic nature. Keyhole.

Sure, but not-so-fast. We have people invoking agency with countless differing 'god(s)'/other. They cannot all be right, but they could all certainly be mistaken. But I guess it is likely unfalsifiable, which is why you can so easily tell me I might be mistaken.

Not in your limited dogmatic/pragmatic perspective, but they are right if they get what they want out of the god(s). Or whatever you want to call it. Higher power, superstition, culture etc. A lot of practicing Jews and Christians are atheists. It's about community, tradition, culture, even compulsion. In Shintoism interchangeable gods bring the community together, planting and harvest. In superstition the error brings comfort. Maybe false comfort or maybe some silly little thing that is rooted in some rational behavior. Right or wrong is subjective.

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

That's ideology. The same applies to the unbeliever. You can show a believer how the Bible says the soul is mortal/destructible (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and you can show secular and theological scholarly consensus that the immortal soul was adopted over time after Alexander (332 BCE) or Constantine (325 CE) and you can quote Plato quoting Socrates and their influence on where the older teachings of the immortal soul came from - it doesn't matter. Because they believe. The ideology becomes a part of them and they feel it's destruction is a destruction that is a part of them. And you can show the unbeliever the same with the same effect for the same reason. They want to believe the Bible is what they believe it to be.

The thing that bothers me about this - the most - is that it's like you're looking through a keyhole.

This response adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

It should. After your hypothesis you need to do research. And you glossed over my question regarding your observation and question. The reason you gloss it over is that your premise is ideological. No more substantiated than any fake belief in some God(s).

[Purple Knight]

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

I don't think so. It might be the reason people are primed to believe in gods but they still wouldn't unless that specific belief helped them. They wouldn't give 10% of their income as a tithe, give 1/7th of their week, or the foreskins of their male babies. There are a lot of big sacrifices associated with religion and it must help more than it hurts, or it wouldn't persist.

My answer is that it helps people be tribal. Nobody wants to admit they're racists, but if everyone wasn't quietly favouring their own genome, their genome would not still be here. Religion is a convenient excuse to do exactly that, and the more entry barriers, the better.

That's not to say we don't need some tribalism. We need at least enough that people can't wreak havoc anonymously, and have no consequences. Religious communities provide that.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I wasn't going to when you talked about belief not helping. I thought 'it helps social cohesion in a group' and then you said it yourself.

[POI]

I'm going to let this one marinate for bit before I respond, which will hopefully induce more responses to assess.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. I think we all continue to make type 1 errors all the time. But these errors are benign, or not usually harmful. Hence, we will always make them. We invoke agency, in both 'good' and 'bad', in error, quite often. I think this is, in part, why I still (could) be a deist at times. After much study, my logic tells me nothing intelligent, or that any agency that desires me, is there. But the "evolutionary" part within me always still makes me wonder.

You dismiss the dictionary definition of a god as being anything or anyone worshipped but you accept the dictionary definition of agency as being the sense of control that you feel in your life, your capacity to influence your own thoughts and behavior, and have faith in your ability to handle a wide range of tasks and situations.

Three things come to mind. Shintoism, superstition and Alcoholics Anonymous. People assign control. They either take responsibility or delegate it.

Of course, it's proven.

Thanks. So, I guess we may be done here.

Since before we began, yes. The reason is that you can't accept the fact that God could be proven to anyone personally, and since you don't fully understand what gods are you can't understand that even if the god didn't exist it could have the same desired purpose and outcome, proving itself to the adherent. To you the God or gods must be proven as science or they've just made an error. Most people who care about God(s) either unbelievers like you or believers like Jim and Tammy Baker get what they want out of God(s) whether or not they know it or the God(s) exist. Most of them don't care as is evident by assumptions - errors - like the one you and millions of believers make every day. Because, you have a narrow and dogmatic perspective of a pragmatic nature. Keyhole.

Sure, but not-so-fast. We have people invoking agency with countless differing 'god(s)'/other. They cannot all be right, but they could all certainly be mistaken. But I guess it is likely unfalsifiable, which is why you can so easily tell me I might be mistaken.

Not in your limited dogmatic/pragmatic perspective, but they are right if they get what they want out of the god(s). Or whatever you want to call it. Higher power, superstition, culture etc. A lot of practicing Jews and Christians are atheists. It's about community, tradition, culture, even compulsion. In Shintoism interchangeable gods bring the community together, planting and harvest. In superstition the error brings comfort. Maybe false comfort or maybe some silly little thing that is rooted in some rational behavior. Right or wrong is subjective.

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

That's ideology. The same applies to the unbeliever. You can show a believer how the Bible says the soul is mortal/destructible (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and you can show secular and theological scholarly consensus that the immortal soul was adopted over time after Alexander (332 BCE) or Constantine (325 CE) and you can quote Plato quoting Socrates and their influence on where the older teachings of the immortal soul came from - it doesn't matter. Because they believe. The ideology becomes a part of them and they feel it's destruction is a destruction that is a part of them. And you can show the unbeliever the same with the same effect for the same reason. They want to believe the Bible is what they believe it to be.

The thing that bothers me about this - the most - is that it's like you're looking through a keyhole.

This response adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

It should. After your hypothesis you need to do research. And you glossed over my question regarding your observation and question. The reason you gloss it over is that your premise is ideological. No more substantiated than any fake belief in some God(s).

If POI is letting it stew I'll have a comment. Equating agency (Human decision -making faculty) with Gods which has a sorta waggish dictionary definition (your fave rock star or your 1970's muscle bike) and has nothing to do with the gods that are discussed here. Human agency is a fact and does not disappear as a fact even if substance abuse can erode it. After all, blinking is an instinctive reaction that nobody (in general) can control for ever, but that doesn't remove the fact of agency. You are trying to equate the demonstrable with the postulated and smokescreen with eroding of agency through alcoholism. Nay, Nay on that one.

The waffle of your next Para seems again a smokescreen to disguise the fact that Gods (of the kind we discuss here) have not been demonstrated. If they have, please give a link or describe how.

I agree about the purpose or at least use (good and bad) of religion. Abrahamist religion has a very strong recipe for persistence which is why Judaism has persisted despite everything the other Abrahamic religions could do to it and not because it is true or its' god is real. I may say that I noticed that Islam did not prevail in places where there was a popular cohesive religion. For example the Philippines where Islam was stopped short by Spain introducing Catholicism. Stopped it dead. But it made progress where religion was vaguely animist or not a structured theology and popular. Same in Siam where Islam made no progress against Buddhism but swept over Malaya and Indonesia. I suggest because Hindo Buddhism had lost the popular touch or more likely because it exploited the lack of unity between the various states.

The final para is fallacious. It looks like the old appeal to unknowns fallacy. We are (I guess) willing to look at any claim of hypothesis that you might propose, but you need to validate it as fact not accepting a possible as a probable without evidence.

[POI]

No. I think we all continue to make type 1 errors all the time. But these errors are benign, or not usually harmful. Hence, we will always make them. We invoke agency, in both 'good' and 'bad', in error, quite often. I think this is, in part, why I still (could) be a deist at times. After much study, my logic tells me nothing intelligent, or that any agency that desires me, is there. But the "evolutionary" part within me always still makes me wonder.

You dismiss the dictionary definition of a god as being anything or anyone worshipped but you accept the dictionary definition of agency as being the sense of control that you feel in your life, your capacity to influence your own thoughts and behavior, and have faith in your ability to handle a wide range of tasks and situations.

I've already explained.... For the intents and purposes of this discussion, here in the 'debating Christianity' forum, I am only speaking about the Bible God. If we were talking about baseball, we might instead be talking about how Micky Mantle/other was/is a 'god'.

And by 'agency', I mean the Bible God is perceived to intervene. Since these 'instinctual' perceptions are benign and also unfalsifiable, if wrong, they are never corrected. Which means many of us will continue to invoke these thoughts, right or wrong -- (unharmed and unverified), for life. We accept the hits, and ignore the misses.

Three things come to mind. Shintoism, superstition and Alcoholics Anonymous. People assign control. They either take responsibility or delegate it.

I would agree, in part. As for AA, the "Bible God" seems to play a part.

Of course, it's proven.

Thanks. So, I guess we may be done here.

Since before we began, yes. The reason is that you can't accept the fact that God could be proven to anyone personally, and since you don't fully understand what gods are you can't understand that even if the god didn't exist it could have the same desired purpose and outcome, proving itself to the adherent. To you the God or gods must be proven as science or they've just made an error. Most people who care about God(s) either unbelievers like you or believers like Jim and Tammy Baker get what they want out of God(s) whether or not they know it or the God(s) exist. Most of them don't care as is evident by assumptions - errors - like the one you and millions of believers make every day. Because, you have a narrow and dogmatic perspective of a pragmatic nature. Keyhole.

No. I do not think 'science' can prove/disprove the (supernatural or God). Which is why the topic states it is my hypothesis. However, what OTHER mechanism(s)/tool(s) might one use to reasonably demonstrate the (supernatural or God)?

I'm merely investigating the reason most believe in God. And in this case, the Bible God. Invoking 'agency' looks to play a fundamental role, for which I have yet to get any push-back, including your response in bold above....

Sure, but not-so-fast. We have people invoking agency with countless differing 'god(s)'/other. They cannot all be right, but they could all certainly be mistaken. But I guess it is likely unfalsifiable, which is why you can so easily tell me I might be mistaken.

Not in your limited dogmatic/pragmatic perspective, but they are right if they get what they want out of the god(s). Or whatever you want to call it. Higher power, superstition, culture etc. A lot of practicing Jews and Christians are atheists. It's about community, tradition, culture, even compulsion. In Shintoism interchangeable gods bring the community together, planting and harvest. In superstition the error brings comfort. Maybe false comfort or maybe some silly little thing that is rooted in some rational behavior. Right or wrong is subjective.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the ones who invoke Jehovah. Who is a claimed intentional agency that sometimes intervenes. His intervention, if false in reality, is neither falsified nor harmful, which reinforces the belief that it could be true. Couple this with what I stated in the OP, that the ones who first invoke type 2 errors are now virtually extinct, and you have a recipe for why the majority believe in a higher power's existence. Just choose your flavor of God(s), which may also be tied (in part) to indoctrination and/or geography. In your specific case, the Bible God.

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

That's ideology. The same applies to the unbeliever. You can show a believer how the Bible says the soul is mortal/destructible (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and you can show secular and theological scholarly consensus that the immortal soul was adopted over time after Alexander (332 BCE) or Constantine (325 CE) and you can quote Plato quoting Socrates and their influence on where the older teachings of the immortal soul came from - it doesn't matter. Because they believe. The ideology becomes a part of them and they feel it's destruction is a destruction that is a part of them. And you can show the unbeliever the same with the same effect for the same reason. They want to believe the Bible is what they believe it to be.

I'd argue the unbeliever, like me, still struggles with the fact that I was born with a predisposition to invoke type 1 errors over type 2 errors. The only way I can somewhat discern a type 1 error (maybe), is comparing the claims of the Bible with my perceptions. Few fall away, however. Very few, as the statistics show. But they are climbing, due to more readily available information and education.

It should. After your hypothesis you need to do research. And you glossed over my question regarding your observation and question. The reason you gloss it over is that your premise is ideological. No more substantiated than any fake belief in some God(s).

Are you talking about this question?

"Wouldn't that just be stupidity? How would the stupid people fare any better than the non-stupid people?"

If so, there is another reason I skipped it. You are merely substituting the word <stupidity> with <first associating type 2 errors and being wrong>.

[Data]

I've already explained.... For the intents and purposes of this discussion, here in the 'debating Christianity' forum, I am only speaking about the Bible God. If we were talking about baseball, we might instead be talking about how Micky Mantle/other was/is a 'god'.

Stop arguing and think. The OP: "Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution." This Bible God you speak of is, then, in your estimation, all gods/higher powers?

And by 'agency', I mean the Bible God is perceived to intervene.

So, just another argument of yours, the same as every other argument of yours. Theism envy. As usual it doesn't matter what anyone responds with because the argument is in your own soul, using the Biblical term.

Since these 'instinctual' perceptions are benign and also unfalsifiable, if wrong, they are never corrected. Which means many of us will continue to invoke these thoughts, right or wrong -- (unharmed and unverified), for life. We accept the hits, and ignore the misses.

Generally, they are fabricated by the confused themselves and therefore only become problematic when confronting others. They aren't real in any other way. If the fabricators wanted to find God instead of what they are actually doing it would be different. The confusion is the desired outcome for whatever reason.

I would agree, in part. As for AA, the "Bible God" seems to play a part.

In reality no more or less than any of the others I mentioned or the myriad others throughout recorded history I didn't list.

No. I do not think 'science' can prove/disprove the (supernatural or God).

Supernatural simply means science doesn't currently understand, why couldn't they? I can why can't science? They can. Can they prove love? Do they need to? Is it relevant? Why do you think the "supernatural" God is relevant? Any of them, by the way, even those outside your strict adherence to ignorance on the definition. That is, God/gods/higher powers. Why relevant?

Which is why the topic states it is my hypothesis. However, what OTHER mechanism(s)/tool(s) might one use to reasonably demonstrate the (supernatural or God)?

Crystal ball? Social neuroscience? Archaeology? Space exploration? The human mind? The Bible?

I'm merely investigating the reason most believe in God.

Really?! Interesting. Why not investigate the reason you don't?

And in this case, the Bible God. Invoking 'agency' looks to play a fundamental role, for which I have yet to get any push-back, including your response in bold above....

Explain. Agency is action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect. What does my response in bold above have to do with that?

I'm not talking about them.

I'll say it again. From your original post. God/gods/higher powers. Why limit them to your own specifications? Seems pointless to me. Anecdotal at best. Really - is that what you're doing? Do you even know what you are doing was? From the very first post I read of yours, this is the question that fascinated me. It's what drew me.

I'm talking about the ones who invoke Jehovah.

[Laughs] Are you being sneaky again? Just a little sneaky? Huh? I don't recall Jehovah specifically being mentioned in the OP. Only just now. Here. Let me do this. Anecdotally hypothetical. Go back in my shoes to the early 1980s. You're 15 or 16. Your young grandmother had recently been hospitalized with a serious illness that at first the brilliant doctors couldn't diagnose. She was dying. But then they realized that it was a simple not uncommon ailment and they diagnosed and treated her successfully. In three days, she was back at home and feeling fine. So, you, now in my shoes, are standing outside on a beautiful summer day. Your house is the house where all the neighborhood kids of all ages hang out and they're running around doing various things. You're standing by the maple tree, helping one of your youngest brother's friends up into the tree because he couldn't reach the lowest branch and always needed help. Just after that an apparition appeared of your grandmother. It looks like a hologram. She's smiling at you. She doesn't say anything, she just waves and then turns to walk away. In a sort of foggy distance, you see another apparition which you recognize as her husband who died when you were about 5 years old. You were never very close to either one. You can remember him vaguely and you rarely saw her. Then, like magic, they both disappear and you are standing there, surrounded by the chaos of a bunch of kids at play. You can tell by their lack of response that they didn't see what you just saw. By the way, you're an agnostic/atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural but doesn't dismiss it instantly out of ignorance. You don't know. But ghost stories and religious people seem stupid to you. That's you in my shoes. Hypothetically. How would you react?

What I did, is thought to myself, wow. That was odd. What was that? Later that day my dad got a call from my aunt informing him that my grandmother had died. She was found a couple days after. The calendar on her wall had that day circled with a red magic marker. I've never made anything out of it. I didn't know what to think. Couldn't explain it.

Who is a claimed intentional agency that sometimes intervenes.

Okay. In the Bible some made the same claim. Some were true and others were false. In the material world most people know the US President exists but there isn't any reason for the US President to contact them personally so he doesn't. You may try to contact him but that could prove to be difficult. What the point?

You want me to levitate into the heavens or part the Mississippi river for you? Would that impress you? Walk on water? Heal your gout? What do you want?

His intervention, if false in reality, is neither falsified nor harmful, which reinforces the belief that it could be true.

No. The belief you are talking about is fabricated. Dependent only upon the believer. The believer is the agency.

Couple this with what I stated in the OP, that the ones who first invoke type 2 errors are now virtually extinct, and you have a recipe for why the majority believe in a higher power's existence.

That's just nonsense. I don't pay any attention to that sort of thing.

Just choose your flavor of God(s), which may also be tied (in part) to indoctrination and/or geography.

Yeah, as a sort of inspiration. A root concept. Most people don't know anything about God and they don't care. They invent their own gods. Deus ex machina. Shiva, Amaterasu, Jesus, Jehovah, The Watchtower, Science, Evolution, Baseball, Money, Food. It doesn't matter. They're all the same conceptually.

In your specific case, the Bible God.

Oooooh.

I'd argue the unbeliever, like me, still struggles with the fact that I was born with a predisposition to invoke type 1 errors over type 2 errors. The only way I can somewhat discern a type 1 error (maybe), is comparing the claims of the Bible with my perceptions. Few fall away, however. Very few, as the statistics show. But they are climbing, due to more readily available information and education.

Well, there, finally is the ambiguous confirmation bias in the guise of scientific inquiry. It's a good thing, though, don't you think? I don't mean your categorization of errors; I mean the falling away that isn't the falling away. The importance of faith. The "believers" create their own gods and have faith in them. They fall away into their own darkness. The "unbelievers" know or at least have what they need to know and yet they put their faith elsewhere and so they fall away into their own darkness. But the ones who manage to avoid those pitfalls have true faith in the true God. Who does he want? Those who want what he wants. Those who truly want his purpose to be fulfilled, not in some imagined traditional concept that looks remarkably like what the believer happens to want. One that sooths them and whispers sweet lies to them. Not the destructive self-interest of the so-called unbeliever or quasi-religious who would only use him to justify their own means. But the ones who are humble and willing to make his purpose work. Properly.

So, all of this - argument - is pointless. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't teach anyone what they don't already want to know. Ever. And it never will. You - have what you want already.

Are you talking about this question?

"Wouldn't that just be stupidity? How would the stupid people fare any better than the non-stupid people?"

If so, there is another reason I skipped it. You are merely substituting the word <stupidity> with <first associating type 2 errors and being wrong>.

Oh, well. For scientific integrity let's adopt that phrase then.

[POI]

So, all of this - argument - is pointless.

My hypothesis remains unchallenged. Thanks. 

Oh, and please stop responding if you really mean what you said above.

[Data]

So, all of this - argument - is pointless.

My hypothesis remains unchallenged. Thanks. 

Oh, and please stop responding if you really mean what you said above.

Stop being insulted by your obvious lack of an argument. You are examining the meaningless for your own purpose.

Here's all you need to know to stop dong that. If you want to. Maybe you don't. There's a lot of meaning in the meaningless. All you need to do to end your personal vendetta is ask yourself one question and then take it from there. Do you want faith - do you want what God wants or do you want what you want? That you want what you want is a totally acceptable answer and you need to get busy doing that. Unless what you want is for everyone else to want only what you want. Then you're an island floating in a sea of insanity. Until your end. Same with anyone else. Same with me, same with everyone.

[POI]

So, all of this - argument - is pointless.

My hypothesis remains unchallenged. Thanks. 

Oh, and please stop responding if you really mean what you said above.

Stop being insulted by your obvious lack of an argument. You are examining the meaningless for your own purpose.

You already agreed with my assessment in post 23:

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

Of course, it's proven.

You then went on to state:

Your error is making the assumption they aren't getting what they want out of it.

For which I will again reiterate. Yes, I have already acknowledged that type 1 errors are both unverifiable, as well as unharmful. (i.e.):

Since these 'instinctual' perceptions are benign and also unfalsifiable, if wrong, they are never corrected. Which means many of us will continue to invoke these thoughts, right or wrong -- (unharmed and unverified), for life. We accept the hits, and ignore the misses.

**********************

So again, thanks for leaving my hypothesis unchallenged.