One main take away from this is that people seem to maintain their beliefs as a social mechanism first and foremost. That’s incredibly useful insight into human motivation; we want to be included and will often shift our viewpoints in order to align ourselves with the group.
Agree Research into Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood…simply put…adolescent want to be unique, want to belong, and want to contribute. And once one is accepted into a group, church group, sports team, drama club or a gang…the adolescent belief system comes under pressure. For starters, adolescents are more social and more complexly social than children or adults. For example, a 2013 study showed that teens average more than four hundred Facebook friends, far more than do adults.22 Moreover, teen sociality is particularly about affect, and responsiveness to emotional signaling-recall the greater limbic and lesser frontal cortical response to emotional faces in adolescents. And teens don’t rack up four hundred Facebook friends for data for their sociology doctorates. For teens there is the frantic need to belong. This need to belong produces teen vulnerability to peer pressure and emotional contagion. Moreover, such pressure is typically “deviance training,” increasing the odds of violence, substance abuse, crime, unsafe sex, and poor health habits (few teen gangs’ pressure kids to join the gang in tooth flossing followed by random acts of kindness). For example, in college dorms the excessive drinker is more likely to influence the teetotalling roommate than the reverse. The incidence of eating disorders in adolescents spreads among peers with a pattern resembling viral contagion. The same occurs with depression among female adolescents, reflecting their tendency to “co-ruminate” on problems, reinforcing one another’s negative affect. Robert Sapolsky, Behave
Good presentation. I have lived my whole life without "religion" and have done just fine. Wouldn't change anything because I don't need to. But, as I have aged I have come to realize that for others, "religion" does offer something beneficial for them. And I believe it is real for them. I am perfectly fine living my life and making some compromises along the way for those who have a different perspective than mine. It is my experience that tolerance is usually responded in kind. I see absolutely no reason for the issue to be divisive.
The problem isn’t even the spiritual part of it but non spiritual folks taking scripture literally and hurting others by acting on insanity. I have no problem with someone to rely on higher power for courage to make it through tough time but I completely against when one use the scripture to discriminate and oppress others or take power and control.
The real roadblock to thinking clearly and honestly about the world is not religion itself, but lack of skepticism (particularly self-skepticism), the assumption that ones knows what one is talking about without first investigating it, and the personal, emotional attachment to propositions. This lecture in particular reminds me that it is important not to submit to any "Double Deference" if one is intending to discover the truth. Look carefully at _why_ one might regard a proposition as true; this alone should influence your belief in it. Not who said it, not out of which sphere it emerges, not how you feel about it, not how it pertains to you. It can be a long journey with many tangents, and we must ask ourselves in the process what constitutes a good _why_, and put our egos and passions aside. But I think we must take it.
@@utah133 Fantastic! Though hopefully you haven't caved in to Biden's agenda like Sanders and the squad! Chris Hedges would be a true democratic socialist in my opinion.
I agree with your points…lack of skepticism…unsubstantiated assumptions … however what proceeds one’s ability to ‘think differently’, to rationalize beyond intuition requires understanding one’s brain. Neuroscience. Neuropsychology. Neuroendocrinology. “There is no scientific study more vital to man than the study of his own brain. Our entire view of the universe depends on it.” “It is not easy to convey, unless one has experienced it, the dramatic feeling of sudden enlightenment that floods the mind when the right idea finally clicks into place.” Francis Crick
It took me years to leave my religious upbringing but I can never go back. I think it gives people comfort so religions and believes in god or gods goes on from generation to generation.
There seems an inherent need in individuals to have an explanation for events. Some causal explanation are multifaceted and extremely complex…pushing the limit of cognitive load for many individuals….the pressure release being ‘god willed it’. There was no comfort in my indoctrination in Catholicism; only major discomfort after shaking holy water over my father’s coffin at the age of 12! Once an individual escapes human fabricated indoctrinations, and contemplates the complexities of the universe, including Homo sapiens, based on models of understanding documented by empirical evidence…one’s own existence becomes fantastically awesome!
Not long ago I watched a documentary about an Amazonian tribe. In this documentary, one of the tribal leaders gathered all the children to have a little...educational session. He then told them a story. The story went something like this: Once upon a time a mother went down to the river to gather some water with her infant. She set her baby down and began to gather water in buckets. When she had her head turned, a monkey came and snatched her baby, and ran off into the forest. She was hysterical, and asked the god of the forest to bring her baby back. The god of the forest took pity on her and made monkey bring the baby back to her. The god was furious with monkey, and as punishment he cursed the monkey so it must forever remain in the trees, forbidden from coming to the ground. This is why monkeys live in trees. A cultural fiction used to explain aspects of their environment. This is exactly the same as Christianity. Once upon a time a god made some humans and put them in a garden. He gave them an insatiable thirst for knowledge, a natural curiosity and inquisitiveness. He then put a magic knowledge tree in the garden, and forbid them from eating its fruit. He then decided to put an evil talking snake in the garden, with the goal of attempting to persuade them to eat from the tree. Well, they did eat from the tree...imagine that. God was furious with them, so as punishment he cursed the humans with death, and future generations would all be born with this curse, with sin and wickedness in their hearts. This is why people die, and why people do bad things. I take it back, they're not exactly the same. The monkey story is more plausible, and the god in the monkey story doesn't appear to be a literal psychopath. However, they're the same in that they are both complete and utter fiction.
You're right, but in the case of the indians in the Amazons (and I know some, I live in Venezuela) most of their stories, of their cultural fiction, are not made in order to explain the true about things, but in order to stablish, to teach, a way to relate with the enviroment. They don´t believe that their stories are true and don´t regard them as facts, on the contrary, those stories helps the children to connect with the nature around them in a healthy (ludic) way. We, as westerners, want to teach the children all the knowledge that we has achieve, indians, on the contrary, give their children "clues" that helps the children to play with nature, with existence in an imaginary way (imagination). We as westerners let our children play games (as a bubble surrounded by rationality), indians knows that there's a connection between a person and it´s enviroment (a connection, a feeling of connection), if an indian "shows" (teaches) to a children that things are alive, that animals are similar to humans, etc. that child will see that the nature around him or her is a mystery, that its alive and that he or her is a part of it. If we teach our childrens that a tree is good to make fire or to make a table we can be right, but we're taking life out of all trees.
***** There's nothing special about religion. In my experience, most (American) Christians aren't aware their....religion....is a religion. They know nothing of its origins or the similarities it shares with other myths. I seldom see the connection made between the mythology of modern prescientific tribal cultures and the prescientific tribal cultures that Christianity originated in. Most of the people that watch this video will likely be in a predominantly Christian region or christian themselves. Perhaps this video wasn't the best place (if any) for this post, but if one Christian reads it and reflects at all on their "faith", I'll consider it worth my time. Tell me, what did your borderline trolling comment accomplish? Low quality? Simple minded? The words pot, kettle, and black come to mind.
+nick p we are yet in danger of institutional thinking - it is a peculiar impulse. habits of mind make life more straightforward on a practical level. but they do not constitute more than a portion of reality. a sensible awareness of the complex and vast nature of real life in all its great potential forms and expressions, especially in the endlessly unique experiences of individual point of view. the shrunken mind and stilted imagination does not make for a more solid or accurate picture of life. it is merely a prejudice of its age, and is a form of tunnel vision
I enjoyed this. Professor Bloom is smart. Don’t dance, Dr. Bloom. Put your weightequally on both hips, knees underneath them, feet beneath them. Breathe in. Relax. You have such good things to say. Don’t distract folks by shifting your weight.
The way we think / reason is largely driven by tradition. Religion is just one part of the overall bundle of traditions that guide our sense of the world.
He says a more appropriate title for the talk would be "There Is Nothing Special About Religious Belief." (46:20) What I think he means is that the reason people have religious beliefs is strikingly similar to why people have beliefs about other things, including the age of the Earth and the explanation for the great variety of life on this planet. Basically: _we take somebody's word for it_. He also says that religion _can_ lead to exactly the kind of thing you suggest: "so many people killing and dying for it" (55:15)
I think the point is that religion is just constructed by psychological mechanisms and therefore nothing speciel as in supernatural or the true words by a God. The logic is that "it is natural and therefore not special, because fx. eating is natural and therefore not special". Special implicitly means in this context (I think atleast) that it is not natural, and Bloom says it is natural and therefore not special.
Read Behave by Robert Sapolsky. Our thoughts and behaviors are not a result of simply ‘taking someone else’s word for it!’ ‘taking someone else’s word for it!’ Is an unsubstantiated opinion, not based on neuroscience, nor neuropsychology.
12:41 "If you ask people, 'Where are you? Where is your self?' You will get an answer, 'You are in your head.' " I have heard that the ancient Greeks, of Homer's time, considered "their personalities" as residing in their Liver, or chest; in the same way that we think of ourselves as "residing in our heads." Apparently they though the liver was the seat of thought, not the brain. Curiously, they were also very emotional and it was considered a sign of strength for a man to show emotion in public. For example, War Heroes would openly weep and cry during funeral speeches.
Sadness for person dying , it’s not that you stop believing of existence of after death, it is because you will not have the human interaction/contact in human form any more with that body.
If this is true then humanity has no future.. I question as much as possible of what I think to know.. I thought that's the usual approach.. Now I learn that the majority of people just believe for no good reason... It's a tragedy.
I wonder if there are differing levels of belief. Are different parts of the brain are activated when for instance someone is asked if the sky is blue, vs if someone is asked if miracles exist, having before stated that they believe in both.
Other than science and religion, I think the division of cognitive labor applies to politics as well. I've met plenty of people that will identify with a certain political party, but have a hard time explaining policy stances by that party above a superficial level. It always made me feel like they were just parroting back what they heard. Of course, there are also people that are very well informed, but it's hard to judge which ones are correct without becoming an expert yourself. You're left with deciding which side to trust using your own biases and feelings.
i think very few really have faith in the religion they claim when it comes to gods, they just think if they act like it hard enough it it is true and it aint but if it is and they know it's not but they got to live forever.,and they can't imagine not existing.
23:00 Yes exactly the hegonomic twenty first century superficial best human beings can currently do wanting rid of old God is Darwinism ,but Intelligence and consciousness may not be just individual but the matrix out of which it all emerges.
Ignorance and fear are the foundations of all religion. In pre-historic times, humankind believed in animism, as they venerated animals and plants as having a "spirit." And of course, lightening wasn't understood, nor was disease, and so when these things occurred, fear of the unknown led to beliefs in a "God" or "Gods" to protect humans from the vicissitudes of life. Today we have a well developed science that can explain much, even going back to the beginning of the universe. But the vast majority of the people on earth have been inculcated since birth with some mythological religion , and huge religious institutions have developed over the millennia, who are not about to give up their power over their "flocks." The result is; we continue to have religion perpetuated even though it often violates logic, and offers no evidence of being true. Perhaps as time goes by, we can evolve away from these unfounded beliefs, into a species that values reason above all.
sciene is also a religion. many people who are not scientists blindy belive in big band theory, theory of evolution, black holes and so on even though there is little to none evidence for them. If you look at science as a whole the more we know the more we understand how little we know. Not only that we frequently question what we already know based on new data. We as specieces know very little about the world we interact with. If you start questining basics you usually quikcly arrive at a dead end. Things like what is time? Does time exist? What is matter? What is energy? Do we create our own reality? For me god is everything we dont know.
Wouldn't it be interesting, in order to test where the self is, to use other senses than just sight? When you ask where the fly or snowflake is closer to the self, you use your eyes and therefore they are observed closest to you when they are near your head. I'm curious what the outcome would be if you would ask the participants about cold air blowing on you body or warm light shining on you and where it is closest to the self, because nerve endings are all over your body.
The Fly is Closer to Mary in the face because of Visual Perspective in which the size of the fly is humongous on her face in proportion to her face vs on her shoes it looks smaller and farther away.
It comes down to storytelling, meaning understanding the story you want to tell and HOW you want to tell it. By missing the slides it shows the videographer wasn't thinking about composition which also means he/she wasn't thinking about the story.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet No, I don't believe in God. However, I do believe that there is one basic way to live that leaves a lot of personal freedom. This is based on my own experience. Because there really is one basic way to live that also implies that this one way is sacred -- it is what life is all about. If there have been people who lived this one way so naturally and thoroughly, it is understandable that others would have followed them, emulated them and then worshipped them -- and finally raised at least one of them to a God.
Self Fulfilling Prophet depends on how you define that word. Its an abstruct concept like love that doesnt have a defiition that people would agree upon making it difficult to discuss. Religion however is a well defined and real making it easy to see its flaws.
I think that you will find that the source of our self-control is the pre-frontal lobe, which is the largest such of all animals on our planet. I suppose you may be allowed your own beliefs on the matter, but that's the bottom line.
I know this was made years ago... and the video team does a fair job of covering the lecture, but i was peeved when Bloom would be directing the audiences attention to the powerpoint and the camera would just stay on him and after the example was illustrated the camera would stutter over for a second and linger on other screen that need not be seen.... look alive camera guy!
I don't know. I'm not sure that religion doesn't codify the process described by Dr. Bloom here, making it worse. Yes, I'll defer to Paul Bloom or Stephen Pinker on something without thinking about it a lot of times, but when I realize that I'm doing this I recognize a problem with it. I don't think that people do that in the context of religion. The other thing that I would argue is different about religion, especially vs. science, is that process for becoming an expert is different. It is very easy to get religious authority. There are roughly the same amount of secularly inclined Americans as there are evangelicals. By secularly inclined, I mean nones and liberal christians who are inclined towards an empirical worldview. George W. Bush got elected largely due to the influence of evangelicals. Imagine how much harder it would be for someone to get the same level of support from the secularly inclined. GW could never have done it. The religiously inclined will _readily_ follow the stupid. The quality of the "experts" that religion allows for makes it a special case.
Chameleon Firestorm I think you're confusing me making an argument with me stating what seems to be just blatantly obvious. In a world full of empiricists George W. Bush is unclogging toilets somewhere. He got a pass on his record of bad decision making due to his "born again" status. *"religious people (at least in the Western Religions) have demanded expertise and intellectual authority for their beliefs."* _really?_ :)
No Way - what Dr Bloom is saying isn't about the real world consequences of those beliefs but the genesis of those beliefs. He means that even if, let's say Bernie Sanders gets elected because he and his voters are concerned about climate change, it isn't due to deep logical thinking that his supporters arrived there. They arrived there cuz he said so. just as evangelicals vote Bush cuz their pastor said so. Bernie might end up doing the better job, but he says both voters are equally clueless about the 'actual' truth!
vbshane I agree. I think that the left often loses the messaging war because, even though they are right and have facts, they fail to "sell" their position effectively. Abortion is good example of this. Framing the debate as "when does life begin" loses the discussion prior to it being started. "Life" in this context is so vague that the conservatives can make it whatever they need to win the argument. If we frame it as "when should the government be allowed in a woman's vagina" we get a completely different argument that the left wins handily. I do think that, in general, the left tends to be more skeptical and less inclined to group think.
No Way The left WAS less inclined to group-think is what I feel. these days they seem to have fallen off the edge. I find conservatives these days(other than the highly emotive issues) to be more realistic, even though as Dr Bloom put it, their realism isn't derived from well thought out logic, just learning stuff in the real world I'm from Asia, and most of his don't identify left or right. we've got our own thing here
At about 20 minutes he has an example with a lost teddybear. This would indicate that children are more theological than adults. But does he take into account the possibility that the children are allready more or less indoctrinated by there parents with a beliefsystem?
Teleological, not theological. Different words, different meanings. Roughly, teleology means knowledge of the underlying purpose of something. Theology: Knowledge of God.
theologians are like scientists? no they are not; if you are lucky a theologian is like a historian, a philosopher, maybe a journalist; but most probably fall under the category of a demagogue.
Human history of what words mean, and human lack of understanding what's being perceived, and all along, words lagging through the centuries to even correctly label what is going on, is all. Human history of language lagging behind, and all our history strewn with misconceptions we still trip over. "We" "self" "body parts" "Soul" "Santa Claus". We've "Santa Claus-ized" so many "things" we can't tell what's up.
Pressure from the failures of past generations helping us totally misunderstanding stuff around us. Without questioning of course bc then we'd actually have to be responsible for ourselves instead of living in a bubble.
Job 38 God speaks out of the whirlwind Through the eye wall of the storm He finds himself in thunders home A swirling tempest all around He flys aloft above the ground The darkness swells on rolling clouds A piercing light from trumpets loud A grasp of breath a silent cry He stands within the Mighty eye A still and peaceful crowns abode He utters forth a Royal poem Assured of life with peace within He rides the eyewall of the wind And landing safely on the earth He tells the story of rebirth Of life again from deaths abode He spreads the truth along the road A life that's lost can rise again Inside the eye wall of the wind
I disagree about the inconsistencies about being a scientist as well as being religious. Religion and Science are 2 different things. There is no one or the other they both coincide. There were scientists in the past who were creationists and because they believe in a Creator, they believed there were consistencies in the world to be discovered. And it contributed to scientific discoveries. I don't want to go into details but I feel that Paul Bloom might not have enough in depth knowledge about Christianity to judge it this way. Or it seems like he has grouped the religious people in the 'non-thinking' and 'non-researching' category. There are many great thinkers and learned people; scientists even who are religious. Does he not think they have come to this conclusion based on certain experiences and research and after much thought deliberation? I would suggest people watch the 2 debates held by Dawkins and Lennox. And also go listen to the audio book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity. Just my two cents. Don't really want to go into a long debate with anyone... just that if they want to talk about religion they should also do their own research first and learn more in depth of what it really is about. Other than that, though I disagree on how he came to his conclusions on some things, he lecture was quite informative to me. I'm still going to say I appreciate his research.
Arista Jem Well of course they're believers due to something convincing them, and he's quite aware of this. To believe something is to be convinced to some degree. Conviction is determined by your perception of the truth. That perception is where this topic takes place. Conviction is what believers coincidentally posit as the revelation to their beliefs. It's what causes the emotions to follow, hence being saved in many denominations of Christianity. Most believers don't have a long period of deliberation before they believe, either. Some do, but I believe it's safe to say most don't. Most are raised into this, and don't have much time to question it. We're born ignorant, and take countless steps of trust to learn about the world around us. Many of which come from loved ones, who we're predisposed to believe. Also, I don't understand why you're saying he can't speak about Christianity unless he has deep knowledge concerning the doctrine of Christianity. This is about why vast numbers of people believe absurd things, and the commonalities among them. He's not saying that believers are stupid, or that they can't think. That's ridiculous. Someone can be wrong about a conclusion and still have sense elsewhere. However, depending on how you look at your religious beliefs, it can definitely interfere with your work. You can point out instances in which this isn't the case, but those are what they are.
Religion does conflict with science (and pretty much any other intellectual pursuits.) If you disagree, you're simply ignorant of the facts. Science is a means of solving problems/answering questions while religion approaches answers that are only in line with its particular dogma, while rejecting answers that defy the dogma (evolution). Are you really so unaware of this constant trend throughout history?
We don't understand all that science has yet to reveal. We don't understand all that religion has yet to reveal. Scientists mainly are more willing to concede their ignorance, than fundamentalist theologians are. More informed theologians have benefited from scientific studies.
This is an excellent example of great speaker with a simple bas habit. “Nervous dancing” can be brought to the attention of kids 7-12 and worked on. It is natural behaviour, clearly distracting, and strategies can be taught.
Belief in God elevates us to our true dignity, and without it we are not complete in our human experience. Science answers the when and where; religion answers The Who and why. Without it we become centered on ourselves and fall to the sins of greed, lust, envy, gluttony, idolatry, and the root of all of them, pride. The psychological theory of self actualization even recognizes the importance of faith in the priorities of becoming the best self one can be. Human beings automatically have the innate sense of worship....either they will worship themselves, earthly creation, false gods, or the true God. The common theme amongst atheists is a certain type of arrogance; that one is above everything. Only when we humble ourselves before God can we truly be lifted up. The event of Jesus being crucified and rising again was an actual historical event. His disciples sacrificed everything, and do to this day, to be joined with Him. Faith is a gift that can only be experienced through the openness to it. Many of the saints throughout history saw the risen Christ and were given visions of heaven and hell. The miracle of Fatima in 1917, where the Virgin Mary appeared to three shepherd children and the sun danced across the sky, was experienced by thousands and is legit. Also consider the Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Christ. And the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, which defies scientific explanation. The Church has standard and strict regulations dictating what a true apparition is. Of course, seeing the Virgin Mary on a piece of burnt toast is not a case which the Church would seriously consider. There must be many witnesses, and true miracles ascribed to them; and even in the cases that the Church seems worthy of belief, we are not commanded to do so. In today’s world it is popular to embrace multiculturalism and to believe all religions are equal. The idea of the “noble savage” is also accepted among many. But many people are not aware that these indigenous peoples committed grave acts of human sacrifice and other atrocities that go against the teachings of Christ. The Crusades were only a response to over 400 years of Muslim invasions and killings of thousands of Christians in Africa and the Iberian peninsula. The Aztecs sacrificed many people to their sun god. So all religions are not equal. Also, it is disingenuous to hold the moral standards of today to people who lived centuries ago. I know it is not popular in this secular age, especially in academic circles, to place one’s faith in God. And as I stated, Faith is a supreme gift and not something one can attain just by listening to someone’s argument. But after being alive for 57 years, having experienced all of the struggles and disappointments of life, I cannot imagine living without the comfort and love of my Lord and Savior.
Julie Durden, the Aztecs and other pagans were not the only persons to do human sacrifice. Read your bible. It is a bit long to type out, but I will give you chapter and verse: Leviticus 27: 28- 29, Exodus 22: 29, Judges 11, 29 - 40, 1 Kings 13: 2, 2 Kings 23: 20, Deuteronomy 13: 13- 19, 2 Chronicles 34: 1- 5. Human sacrifice was not only done in Judaism, but also demanded as you can see from those verses. Jesus Christ was also a sacrifice for sin.
“Juliedurden” pops up on YT most frequently as a fan of the Shroud of Turin, a bit of high Middle Ages fakery-and very good business for the family that rented it to the Cathedral. She of course claims it as real 1st century, and has any number of complex arguments why she cannot accept facts. I’ve learned here that she is willing to believe in the 13 October 1917Miracle of the Sun…which had it actually occurred would have caused the destruction of the whole biosphere, and even perhaps planetary collisions. so Julie is a nutter. And she is incapable of stepping outside her fantasy world.
so a psychologist is lecturing about philosophy? hmm.... Pretty poorly filmed; the sound is poor and there;s no reason the screen isn't part of the view.
Most of the classic novels, along with ‘ancient’ philosophy, and early psychology were attempts to explain human behaviour, without any understanding of the physiology of the brain, nor access to fMRI. “Yes Epicurus, that nobleman is a generous soul, and she a compassionate women, both with large 💕!” The world until recently was influenced by those that made extraordinary use of the Broca and Wernicke areas of their brain…and many are still indoctrination by blabbergast!
'There Is Nothing Special About Religion' ? Then why are so many people killing and dying for it? I think its a mistake to blunt the hard (even bloody) edges of this particular argument.
Not in the least! I am well aware that, for example, the “loves” I feel are actually complex sets of simpler emotions out of which I construct a thing we call love. Even though I know a lot of it is monkey brain emotion, I don’t feel it any less genuinely. I am an ape after all.
Modern science is a offshoot of theology. Terms like Natural Law, the universe is understandable, the reliability and even methodological naturalism are grounded in Christian theology. There does not exist one historian in the history of science or science/religion who disagrees with what I have just. Science is just specialized theology.
Wondering, if there was a god for the atheistic scientist, what would he be like for the scientist to believe and be really sure he is there; that he exists ..can be tested in the lab perhaps...
Everyone believes in a god, whatever you worship first and let rule your life is your god. Some worship another person, science and even sports. As for me, my God is Jesus Christ, I know that He is Lord not because of an equation, but the ultimate inadequacy of only myself leading my life. We are all in need of Him.
Nope. People appear to believe in Invidible agents.polytheism is perhaps more natural. Some suggest the religions, which organize untidy messes of spirits and legends and myths into some what more tidy messes overseen by priests had to wait until the establishment of permanent settlements. (Nomads can’t afford a full time priest class.) You almost certainly were brought up in Christianity, or adopted the most popular religion in your circle. You didn’t sit down and weigh religions, one against the other. If you had been born in Saudi of Saudi family, you’d be a Sunni Muslim. In Iran, a Shi’ite. In Some parts of India, almost certainly a Hindu, in others a Sikh, in others a Muslim. If you had born recently in Western Europe, Canada, AUS, NZ, Japan it is increasingly you likely would be raised without any religious belief at all, and been quite happy, kind, productive. No one needs to believe in fictions.
One main take away from this is that people seem to maintain their beliefs as a social mechanism first and foremost. That’s incredibly useful insight into human motivation; we want to be included and will often shift our viewpoints in order to align ourselves with the group.
Agree Research into Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood…simply put…adolescent want to be unique, want to belong, and want to contribute.
And once one is accepted into a group, church group, sports team, drama club or a gang…the adolescent belief system comes under pressure.
For starters, adolescents are more social and more complexly social than children or adults. For example, a 2013 study showed that teens average more than four hundred Facebook friends, far more than do adults.22 Moreover, teen sociality is particularly about affect, and responsiveness to emotional signaling-recall the greater limbic and lesser frontal cortical response to emotional faces in adolescents. And teens don’t rack up four hundred Facebook friends for data for their sociology doctorates. For teens there is the frantic need to belong.
This need to belong produces teen vulnerability to peer pressure and emotional contagion. Moreover, such pressure is typically “deviance training,” increasing the odds of violence, substance abuse, crime, unsafe sex, and poor health habits (few teen gangs’ pressure kids to join the gang in tooth flossing followed by random acts of kindness).
For example, in college dorms the excessive drinker is more likely to influence the teetotalling roommate than the reverse. The incidence of eating disorders in adolescents spreads among peers with a pattern resembling viral contagion. The same occurs with depression among female adolescents, reflecting their tendency to “co-ruminate” on problems, reinforcing one another’s negative affect.
Robert Sapolsky, Behave
ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
Paul Bloom does some of the most interesting work. Love this guy.
He was my thesis director 🤓
Interesting as in preaching to the choir?
Good presentation. I have lived my whole life without "religion" and have done just fine. Wouldn't change anything because I don't need to. But, as I have aged I have come to realize that for others, "religion" does offer something beneficial for them. And I believe it is real for them. I am perfectly fine living my life and making some compromises along the way for those who have a different perspective than mine. It is my experience that tolerance is usually responded in kind. I see absolutely no reason for the issue to be divisive.
Cheers. Nicely put and appreciated.
It’s worth reading Carl Jung’s “Man and his Symbols” if you haven’t.
Agree and well put!
But if your parents force religion on you from birth, you'll find that "tolerance" is not extended to you, should you decide to reject it!
The problem isn’t even the spiritual part of it but non spiritual folks taking scripture literally and hurting others by acting on insanity. I have no problem with someone to rely on higher power for courage to make it through tough time but I completely against when one use the scripture to discriminate and oppress others or take power and control.
The real roadblock to thinking clearly and honestly about the world is not religion itself, but lack of skepticism (particularly self-skepticism), the assumption that ones knows what one is talking about without first investigating it, and the personal, emotional attachment to propositions.
This lecture in particular reminds me that it is important not to submit to any "Double Deference" if one is intending to discover the truth. Look carefully at _why_ one might regard a proposition as true; this alone should influence your belief in it. Not who said it, not out of which sphere it emerges, not how you feel about it, not how it pertains to you. It can be a long journey with many tangents, and we must ask ourselves in the process what constitutes a good _why_, and put our egos and passions aside. But I think we must take it.
+Alex Stein ni
+Alex Stein That's true. One must always be wary of one's own conclusions. I used to be a Mormon republican. Now I'm an atheist democratic socialist.
@@utah133 Fantastic! Though hopefully you haven't caved in to Biden's agenda like Sanders and the squad!
Chris Hedges would be a true democratic socialist in my opinion.
I agree with your points…lack of skepticism…unsubstantiated assumptions … however what proceeds one’s ability to ‘think differently’, to rationalize beyond intuition requires understanding one’s brain. Neuroscience. Neuropsychology. Neuroendocrinology.
“There is no scientific study more vital to man than the study of his own brain. Our entire view of the universe depends on it.” “It is not easy to convey, unless one has experienced it, the dramatic feeling of sudden enlightenment that floods the mind when the right idea finally clicks into place.” Francis Crick
ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
My favourite lecturer of the moment.
Peter Dodd, yes, I am becoming a fan as well.
It took me years to leave my religious upbringing but I can never go back.
I think it gives people comfort so religions and believes in god or gods goes on from
generation to generation.
There seems an inherent need in individuals to have an explanation for events. Some causal explanation are multifaceted and extremely complex…pushing the limit of cognitive load for many individuals….the pressure release being ‘god willed it’.
There was no comfort in my indoctrination in Catholicism; only major discomfort after shaking holy water over my father’s coffin at the age of 12!
Once an individual escapes human fabricated indoctrinations, and contemplates the complexities of the universe, including Homo sapiens, based on models of understanding documented by empirical evidence…one’s own existence becomes fantastically awesome!
ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
Not long ago I watched a documentary about an Amazonian tribe. In this documentary, one of the tribal leaders gathered all the children to have a little...educational session. He then told them a story. The story went something like this: Once upon a time a mother went down to the river to gather some water with her infant. She set her baby down and began to gather water in buckets. When she had her head turned, a monkey came and snatched her baby, and ran off into the forest. She was hysterical, and asked the god of the forest to bring her baby back. The god of the forest took pity on her and made monkey bring the baby back to her. The god was furious with monkey, and as punishment he cursed the monkey so it must forever remain in the trees, forbidden from coming to the ground. This is why monkeys live in trees.
A cultural fiction used to explain aspects of their environment. This is exactly the same as Christianity.
Once upon a time a god made some humans and put them in a garden. He gave them an insatiable thirst for knowledge, a natural curiosity and inquisitiveness. He then put a magic knowledge tree in the garden, and forbid them from eating its fruit. He then decided to put an evil talking snake in the garden, with the goal of attempting to persuade them to eat from the tree. Well, they did eat from the tree...imagine that. God was furious with them, so as punishment he cursed the humans with death, and future generations would all be born with this curse, with sin and wickedness in their hearts. This is why people die, and why people do bad things.
I take it back, they're not exactly the same. The monkey story is more plausible, and the god in the monkey story doesn't appear to be a literal psychopath. However, they're the same in that they are both complete and utter fiction.
You're right, but in the case of the indians in the Amazons (and I know some, I live in Venezuela) most of their stories, of their cultural fiction, are not made in order to explain the true about things, but in order to stablish, to teach, a way to relate with the enviroment. They don´t believe that their stories are true and don´t regard them as facts, on the contrary, those stories helps the children to connect with the nature around them in a healthy (ludic) way. We, as westerners, want to teach the children all the knowledge that we has achieve, indians, on the contrary, give their children "clues" that helps the children to play with nature, with existence in an imaginary way (imagination). We as westerners let our children play games (as a bubble surrounded by rationality), indians knows that there's a connection between a person and it´s enviroment (a connection, a feeling of connection), if an indian "shows" (teaches) to a children that things are alive, that animals are similar to humans, etc. that child will see that the nature around him or her is a mystery, that its alive and that he or her is a part of it.
If we teach our childrens that a tree is good to make fire or to make a table we can be right, but we're taking life out of all trees.
***** There's nothing special about religion. In my experience, most (American) Christians aren't aware their....religion....is a religion. They know nothing of its origins or the similarities it shares with other myths. I seldom see the connection made between the mythology of modern prescientific tribal cultures and the prescientific tribal cultures that Christianity originated in. Most of the people that watch this video will likely be in a predominantly Christian region or christian themselves. Perhaps this video wasn't the best place (if any) for this post, but if one Christian reads it and reflects at all on their "faith", I'll consider it worth my time. Tell me, what did your borderline trolling comment accomplish? Low quality? Simple minded? The words pot, kettle, and black come to mind.
nick p While I agree religion sucks, so does the creation myth of organic evolution.
+nick p we are yet in danger of institutional thinking - it is a peculiar impulse. habits of mind make life more straightforward on a practical level. but they do not constitute more than a portion of reality. a sensible awareness of the complex and vast nature of real life in all its great potential forms and expressions, especially in the endlessly unique experiences of individual point of view. the shrunken mind and stilted imagination does not make for a more solid or accurate picture of life. it is merely a prejudice of its age, and is a form of tunnel vision
Messiahnyde I see only the one you are now demonstrating. Where is the evidence?
Paul Bloom is awesome.
i came here to thank you for your Yale course on youtube, but here you show the slides extra point !!!
that course is wonderful, but you have to imagine what they are showing in the projector
RUclips suggested this and I appreciate it.
I enjoyed this. Professor Bloom is smart.
Don’t dance, Dr. Bloom. Put your weightequally on both hips, knees underneath them, feet beneath them. Breathe in. Relax.
You have such good things to say. Don’t distract folks by shifting your weight.
The way we think / reason is largely driven by tradition. Religion is just one part of the overall bundle of traditions that guide our sense of the world.
It’s intuition ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
He says a more appropriate title for the talk would be "There Is Nothing Special About Religious Belief." (46:20) What I think he means is that the reason people have religious beliefs is strikingly similar to why people have beliefs about other things, including the age of the Earth and the explanation for the great variety of life on this planet.
Basically: _we take somebody's word for it_.
He also says that religion _can_ lead to exactly the kind of thing you suggest: "so many people killing and dying for it" (55:15)
I think the point is that religion is just constructed by psychological mechanisms and therefore nothing speciel as in supernatural or the true words by a God. The logic is that "it is natural and therefore not special, because fx. eating is natural and therefore not special". Special implicitly means in this context (I think atleast) that it is not natural, and Bloom says it is natural and therefore not special.
Read Behave by Robert Sapolsky.
Our thoughts and behaviors are not a result of simply ‘taking someone else’s word for it!’
‘taking someone else’s word for it!’ Is an unsubstantiated opinion, not based on neuroscience, nor neuropsychology.
ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
He talked about tomorrow lecture, how can I find it?
12:41 "If you ask people, 'Where are you? Where is your self?' You will get an answer, 'You are in your head.' "
I have heard that the ancient Greeks, of Homer's time, considered "their personalities" as residing in their Liver, or chest; in the same way that we think of ourselves as "residing in our heads." Apparently they though the liver was the seat of thought, not the brain.
Curiously, they were also very emotional and it was considered a sign of strength for a man to show emotion in public. For example, War Heroes would openly weep and cry during funeral speeches.
Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character
Book by Jonathan Shay
Sadness for person dying , it’s not that you stop believing of existence of after death, it is because you will not have the human interaction/contact in human form any more with that body.
If this is true then humanity has no future.. I question as much as possible of what I think to know.. I thought that's the usual approach.. Now I learn that the majority of people just believe for no good reason... It's a tragedy.
Always look on the bright side of life.
There is no 'good reason' to hang on to an abusive and addictive con system imposing an acqired mental disease on it's victims by the billions.
The clothes have no emperor. @peacefulwarrior2024
They believe because it’s intuitive and self evident ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
Excellent approach to these issues. And I say that as a theist.
Amazing, thank you so much!
I wonder if there are differing levels of belief. Are different parts of the brain are activated when for instance someone is asked if the sky is blue, vs if someone is asked if miracles exist, having before stated that they believe in both.
Great talk by Paul Bloom!
As an aside, what video camera model was used to record Paul? (I'm considering buying one to record Humanist talks)
Other than science and religion, I think the division of cognitive labor applies to politics as well. I've met plenty of people that will identify with a certain political party, but have a hard time explaining policy stances by that party above a superficial level. It always made me feel like they were just parroting back what they heard. Of course, there are also people that are very well informed, but it's hard to judge which ones are correct without becoming an expert yourself. You're left with deciding which side to trust using your own biases and feelings.
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Book by Jonathan Haidt
Absolute fantastic, Mr. Bloom! Thank you so much.
i think very few really have faith in the religion they claim when it comes to gods, they just think if they act like it hard enough it it is true and it aint but if it is and they know it's not but they got to live forever.,and they can't imagine not existing.
23:00 Yes exactly the hegonomic twenty first century superficial best human beings can currently do wanting rid of old God is Darwinism ,but Intelligence and consciousness may not be just individual but the matrix out of which it all emerges.
This makes a lot of sense. I think the "dualism/animism" theory for religion is more likely than the theory that we made gods up out of fear of death.
ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
Very interesting. Thanks!
the videographer should have focused more on the slides eg he missed The Onion slide @ 0:28:40
I hope to meet you someday Paul.
Ignorance and fear are the foundations of all religion. In pre-historic times, humankind believed in animism, as they venerated animals and plants as having a "spirit." And of course, lightening wasn't understood, nor was disease, and so when these things occurred, fear of the unknown led to beliefs in a "God" or "Gods" to protect humans from the vicissitudes of life.
Today we have a well developed science that can explain much, even going back to the beginning of the universe. But the vast majority of the people on earth have been inculcated since birth with some mythological religion , and huge religious institutions have developed over the millennia, who are not about to give up their power over their "flocks."
The result is; we continue to have religion perpetuated even though it often violates logic, and offers no evidence of being true. Perhaps as time goes by, we can evolve away from these unfounded beliefs, into a species that values reason above all.
sciene is also a religion. many people who are not scientists blindy belive in big band theory, theory of evolution, black holes and so on even though there is little to none evidence for them.
If you look at science as a whole the more we know the more we understand how little we know. Not only that we frequently question what we already know based on new data. We as specieces know very little about the world we interact with. If you start questining basics you usually quikcly arrive at a dead end. Things like what is time? Does time exist? What is matter? What is energy? Do we create our own reality?
For me god is everything we dont know.
science is also a religion, just like "bald" is also a "hair style".
🗣 _There are no commandments, because there is no commander._
Wouldn't it be interesting, in order to test where the self is, to use other senses than just sight? When you ask where the fly or snowflake is closer to the self, you use your eyes and therefore they are observed closest to you when they are near your head. I'm curious what the outcome would be if you would ask the participants about cold air blowing on you body or warm light shining on you and where it is closest to the self, because nerve endings are all over your body.
This man open up the book where I can understand what I am learning
The Fly is Closer to Mary in the face because of Visual Perspective in which the size of the fly is humongous on her face in proportion to her face vs on her shoes it looks smaller and farther away.
It comes down to storytelling, meaning understanding the story you want to tell and HOW you want to tell it. By missing the slides it shows the videographer wasn't thinking about composition which also means he/she wasn't thinking about the story.
No it’s not its intuition ruclips.net/video/ZNlEtBZxML8/видео.htmlsi=kPbcsu8EmpxED0_k
A great speaker always ,
I love how he uses his family as test subjects :D
I'm also a cognitive-development psychologist and I think most of us do 🤓
Interesting and thoughtful presentation. Thank you for posting.
There is no evidence God exists. All religions and all religious books are man-made. Beware of con artists. Be good, do good, and do no harm.
+Seekthetruth3000 I concur.
+Self Fulfilling Prophet No, I don't believe in God. However, I do believe that there is one basic way to live that leaves a lot of personal freedom. This is based on my own experience. Because there really is one basic way to live that also implies that this one way is sacred -- it is what life is all about. If there have been people who lived this one way so naturally and thoroughly, it is understandable that others would have followed them, emulated them and then worshipped them -- and finally raised at least one of them to a God.
there is nothing wrong with god. there is a lot wrong with religion.
Self Fulfilling Prophet depends on how you define that word. Its an abstruct concept like love that doesnt have a defiition that people would agree upon making it difficult to discuss.
Religion however is a well defined and real making it easy to see its flaws.
I think that you will find that the source of our self-control is the pre-frontal lobe, which is the largest such of all animals on our planet. I suppose you may be allowed your own beliefs on the matter, but that's the bottom line.
I know this was made years ago... and the video team does a fair job of covering the lecture, but i was peeved when Bloom would be directing the audiences attention to the powerpoint and the camera would just stay on him and after the example was illustrated the camera would stutter over for a second and linger on other screen that need not be seen.... look alive camera guy!
Agreed!! Nobody else mentioned how poorly this was produced?? It's horribly done!
I don't know. I'm not sure that religion doesn't codify the process described by Dr. Bloom here, making it worse. Yes, I'll defer to Paul Bloom or Stephen Pinker on something without thinking about it a lot of times, but when I realize that I'm doing this I recognize a problem with it. I don't think that people do that in the context of religion.
The other thing that I would argue is different about religion, especially vs. science, is that process for becoming an expert is different. It is very easy to get religious authority. There are roughly the same amount of secularly inclined Americans as there are evangelicals. By secularly inclined, I mean nones and liberal christians who are inclined towards an empirical worldview. George W. Bush got elected largely due to the influence of evangelicals. Imagine how much harder it would be for someone to get the same level of support from the secularly inclined. GW could never have done it. The religiously inclined will _readily_ follow the stupid. The quality of the "experts" that religion allows for makes it a special case.
Chameleon Firestorm I think you're confusing me making an argument with me stating what seems to be just blatantly obvious. In a world full of empiricists George W. Bush is unclogging toilets somewhere. He got a pass on his record of bad decision making due to his "born again" status.
*"religious people (at least in the Western Religions) have demanded expertise and intellectual authority for their beliefs."*
_really?_ :)
Chameleon Firestorm *"It's a non-joke, and a non-argument."*
Yeah, I think said that. Self evident, and certainly not funny.
No Way - what Dr Bloom is saying isn't about the real world consequences of those beliefs but the genesis of those beliefs. He means that even if, let's say Bernie Sanders gets elected because he and his voters are concerned about climate change, it isn't due to deep logical thinking that his supporters arrived there.
They arrived there cuz he said so. just as evangelicals vote Bush cuz their pastor said so. Bernie might end up doing the better job, but he says both voters are equally clueless about the 'actual' truth!
vbshane I agree. I think that the left often loses the messaging war because, even though they are right and have facts, they fail to "sell" their position effectively. Abortion is good example of this. Framing the debate as "when does life begin" loses the discussion prior to it being started. "Life" in this context is so vague that the conservatives can make it whatever they need to win the argument. If we frame it as "when should the government be allowed in a woman's vagina" we get a completely different argument that the left wins handily.
I do think that, in general, the left tends to be more skeptical and less inclined to group think.
No Way The left WAS less inclined to group-think is what I feel. these days they seem to have fallen off the edge.
I find conservatives these days(other than the highly emotive issues) to be more realistic, even though as Dr Bloom put it, their realism isn't derived from well thought out logic, just learning stuff in the real world
I'm from Asia, and most of his don't identify left or right. we've got our own thing here
When we pointing finger in our self and say:"I" we point it on our chest, but Japanese pointing finger in their nose. :)
Just a myth depending on where your parents were from and who they are .
Great lecture. Terrible audio. So-so result.
15:00 I like how every culture mentioned the crotch as the area of the body that the self inhabits
We are naturally prone to see deities in nature, we naturally believe in souls as dualists, or are these societal.
At about 20 minutes he has an example with a lost teddybear. This would indicate that children are more theological than adults. But does he take into account the possibility that the children are allready more or less indoctrinated by there parents with a beliefsystem?
Teleological, not theological. Different words, different meanings. Roughly, teleology means knowledge of the underlying purpose of something. Theology: Knowledge of God.
Bob Bechtel Thanks
theologians are like scientists? no they are not; if you are lucky a theologian is like a historian, a philosopher, maybe a journalist; but most probably fall under the category of a demagogue.
I like the noticeably German attitude of the question around 1:11:30 No prisoners taken^^
Good talk
Poor quality audio
Hmm. Late recommendation. Paul rocks side to side a lot. Nervousness or something ig.
Human history of what words mean, and human lack of understanding what's being perceived, and all along, words lagging through the centuries to even correctly label what is going on, is all. Human history of language lagging behind, and all our history strewn with misconceptions we still trip over. "We" "self" "body parts" "Soul" "Santa Claus". We've "Santa Claus-ized" so many "things" we can't tell what's up.
Pressure from the failures of past generations helping us totally misunderstanding stuff around us. Without questioning of course bc then we'd actually have to be responsible for ourselves instead of living in a bubble.
@@isabelc2131 It's a monkey see monkey do world.
Of course there is nothing important. What a title ❤
15: 15 he asked only 99 indians? thats not much people especially for internet survey.
Hez the bestt
I would be extremely embarrassed if I were the sound man for this presentation. Brilliant talk, terrible sound quality.
Me personally, I think I'm a chimera. I'm some software running on a squishy meat computer. Very temporarily.
Job 38
God speaks out of the whirlwind
Through the eye wall of the storm
He finds himself in thunders home
A swirling tempest all around
He flys aloft above the ground
The darkness swells on rolling clouds
A piercing light from trumpets loud
A grasp of breath a silent cry
He stands within the Mighty eye
A still and peaceful crowns abode
He utters forth a Royal poem
Assured of life with peace within
He rides the eyewall of the wind
And landing safely on the earth
He tells the story of rebirth
Of life again from deaths abode
He spreads the truth along the road
A life that's lost can rise again
Inside the eye wall of the wind
I wish the recorder of this talk stayed on the screen, instead of following Mr. Bloom.
Wrong approach. They should have stayed on the speaker then edited in the visual materials in post production.
I disagree about the inconsistencies about being a scientist as well as being religious. Religion and Science are 2 different things. There is no one or the other they both coincide. There were scientists in the past who were creationists and because they believe in a Creator, they believed there were consistencies in the world to be discovered. And it contributed to scientific discoveries. I don't want to go into details but I feel that Paul Bloom might not have enough in depth knowledge about Christianity to judge it this way. Or it seems like he has grouped the religious people in the 'non-thinking' and 'non-researching' category. There are many great thinkers and learned people; scientists even who are religious. Does he not think they have come to this conclusion based on certain experiences and research and after much thought deliberation? I would suggest people watch the 2 debates held by Dawkins and Lennox. And also go listen to the audio book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity.
Just my two cents. Don't really want to go into a long debate with anyone... just that if they want to talk about religion they should also do their own research first and learn more in depth of what it really is about.
Other than that, though I disagree on how he came to his conclusions on some things, he lecture was quite informative to me. I'm still going to say I appreciate his research.
Arista Jem Well of course they're believers due to something convincing them, and he's quite aware of this. To believe something is to be convinced to some degree. Conviction is determined by your perception of the truth. That perception is where this topic takes place. Conviction is what believers coincidentally posit as the revelation to their beliefs. It's what causes the emotions to follow, hence being saved in many denominations of Christianity. Most believers don't have a long period of deliberation before they believe, either. Some do, but I believe it's safe to say most don't. Most are raised into this, and don't have much time to question it. We're born ignorant, and take countless steps of trust to learn about the world around us. Many of which come from loved ones, who we're predisposed to believe.
Also, I don't understand why you're saying he can't speak about Christianity unless he has deep knowledge concerning the doctrine of Christianity. This is about why vast numbers of people believe absurd things, and the commonalities among them. He's not saying that believers are stupid, or that they can't think. That's ridiculous. Someone can be wrong about a conclusion and still have sense elsewhere. However, depending on how you look at your religious beliefs, it can definitely interfere with your work. You can point out instances in which this isn't the case, but those are what they are.
Arista Jem I disagree.
Religion does conflict with science (and pretty much any other intellectual pursuits.) If you disagree, you're simply ignorant of the facts. Science is a means of solving problems/answering questions while religion approaches answers that are only in line with its particular dogma, while rejecting answers that defy the dogma (evolution). Are you really so unaware of this constant trend throughout history?
We don't understand all that science has yet to reveal. We don't understand all that religion has yet to reveal. Scientists mainly are more willing to concede their ignorance, than fundamentalist theologians are. More informed theologians have benefited from scientific studies.
Is there any chance you could stop constantly moving even when you're standing still, its so distracting hehe
This is an excellent example of great speaker with a simple bas habit. “Nervous dancing” can be brought to the attention of kids 7-12 and worked on. It is natural behaviour, clearly distracting, and strategies can be taught.
Belief in God elevates us to our true dignity, and without it we are not complete in our human experience. Science answers the when and where; religion answers The Who and why. Without it we become centered on ourselves and fall to the sins of greed, lust, envy, gluttony, idolatry, and the root of all of them, pride. The psychological theory of self actualization even recognizes the importance of faith in the priorities of becoming the best self one can be. Human beings automatically have the innate sense of worship....either they will worship themselves, earthly creation, false gods, or the true God. The common theme amongst atheists is a certain type of arrogance; that one is above everything. Only when we humble ourselves before God can we truly be lifted up.
The event of Jesus being crucified and rising again was an actual historical event. His disciples sacrificed everything, and do to this day, to be joined with Him. Faith is a gift that can only be experienced through the openness to it.
Many of the saints throughout history saw the risen Christ and were given visions of heaven and hell. The miracle of Fatima in 1917, where the Virgin Mary appeared to three shepherd children and the sun danced across the sky, was experienced by thousands and is legit. Also consider the Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Christ. And the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico, which defies scientific explanation.
The Church has standard and strict regulations dictating what a true apparition is. Of course, seeing the Virgin Mary on a piece of burnt toast is not a case which the Church would seriously consider. There must be many witnesses, and true miracles ascribed to them; and even in the cases that the Church seems worthy of belief, we are not commanded to do so.
In today’s world it is popular to embrace multiculturalism and to believe all religions are equal. The idea of the “noble savage” is also accepted among many. But many people are not aware that these indigenous peoples committed grave acts of human sacrifice and other atrocities that go against the teachings of Christ. The Crusades were only a response to over 400 years of Muslim invasions and killings of thousands of Christians in Africa and the Iberian peninsula. The Aztecs sacrificed many people to their sun god. So all religions are not equal. Also, it is disingenuous to hold the moral standards of today to people who lived centuries ago.
I know it is not popular in this secular age, especially in academic circles, to place one’s faith in God. And as I stated, Faith is a supreme gift and not something one can attain just by listening to someone’s argument. But after being alive for 57 years, having experienced all of the struggles and disappointments of life, I cannot imagine living without the comfort and love of my Lord and Savior.
Religion only gives the illusion of an answer while science gives true answers
Julie Durden, the Aztecs and other pagans were not the only persons to do human sacrifice. Read your bible. It is a bit long to type out, but I will give you chapter and verse: Leviticus 27: 28- 29, Exodus 22: 29, Judges 11, 29 - 40, 1 Kings 13: 2, 2 Kings 23: 20, Deuteronomy 13: 13- 19, 2 Chronicles 34: 1- 5. Human sacrifice was not only done in Judaism, but also demanded as you can see from those verses. Jesus Christ was also a sacrifice for sin.
“Juliedurden” pops up on YT most frequently as a fan of the Shroud of Turin, a bit of high Middle Ages fakery-and very good business for the family that rented it to the Cathedral. She of course claims it as real 1st century, and has any number of complex arguments why she cannot accept facts. I’ve learned here that she is willing to believe in the 13 October 1917Miracle of the Sun…which had it actually occurred would have caused the destruction of the whole biosphere, and even perhaps planetary collisions.
so Julie is a nutter. And she is incapable of stepping outside her fantasy world.
Yeah, religion is just the zenith of wishful thinking.
so a psychologist is lecturing about philosophy? hmm.... Pretty poorly filmed; the sound is poor and there;s no reason the screen isn't part of the view.
Most of the classic novels, along with ‘ancient’ philosophy, and early psychology were attempts to explain human behaviour, without any understanding of the physiology of the brain, nor access to fMRI.
“Yes Epicurus, that nobleman is a generous soul, and she a compassionate women, both with large 💕!”
The world until recently was influenced by those that made extraordinary use of the Broca and Wernicke areas of their brain…and many are still indoctrination by blabbergast!
Such poor camera work. Distorted audio.
Paul Bloom really reminds me of Jerry Springer. lol,
Yes.
🤯
Maybe the bird dropping was an image of Muhammad?
'There Is Nothing Special About Religion' ? Then why are so many people killing and dying for it? I think its a mistake to blunt the hard (even bloody) edges of this particular argument.
Children are teleological, innate. Animism, dualism, creationism.
Is call superstitious mind
🎯😆🇨🇦🇺🇸
Doesnt constant skepticism just lead to absolute melancholy and disdain for life?
jms nope
Not in the least! I am well aware that, for example, the “loves” I feel are actually complex sets of simpler emotions out of which I construct a thing we call love. Even though I know a lot of it is monkey brain emotion, I don’t feel it any less genuinely. I am an ape after all.
Could it be that science has evolved from religion?
+bluebird NOOOO
+halfmoon26 rofl
Modern science is a offshoot of theology. Terms like Natural Law, the universe is understandable, the reliability and even methodological naturalism are grounded in Christian theology. There does not exist one historian in the history of science or science/religion who disagrees with what I have just. Science is just specialized theology.
God gave us reason, not religion.
Maybe. An offshoot that is too big now it needs its own place to stay.
É que você não vai pegar um montão de mulheres estelionatárias.
É RELIGIÃO SIM
MUÇULMANAS
Wondering, if there was a god for the atheistic scientist, what would he be like for the scientist to believe and be really sure he is there; that he exists ..can be tested in the lab perhaps...
DS Wilson would disagree.
Everyone believes in a god, whatever you worship first and let rule your life is your god. Some worship another person, science and even sports. As for me, my God is Jesus Christ, I know that He is Lord not because of an equation, but the ultimate inadequacy of only myself leading my life. We are all in need of Him.
I still don’t understand why they use capital letter G for Christian god, but not for other god(s). why the special treatment?
Nope. People appear to believe in Invidible agents.polytheism is perhaps more natural. Some suggest the religions, which organize untidy messes of spirits and legends and myths into some what more tidy messes overseen by priests had to wait until the establishment of permanent settlements. (Nomads can’t afford a full time priest class.)
You almost certainly were brought up in Christianity, or adopted the most popular religion in your circle. You didn’t sit down and weigh religions, one against the other. If you had been born in Saudi of Saudi family, you’d be a Sunni Muslim. In Iran, a Shi’ite. In Some parts of India, almost certainly a Hindu, in others a Sikh, in others a Muslim. If you had born recently in Western Europe, Canada, AUS, NZ, Japan it is increasingly you likely would be raised without any religious belief at all, and been quite happy, kind, productive.
No one needs to believe in fictions.
may allah guide him
God is the greatest
No. God is a banana.
Maybe there actually is a God and scientists are just blind.
very weak arguments
He lost me when he quoted Dawkins; the man who thinks nothing created something....lol
good riddance
@@ataarono that all ya got to say ? figures from a brain dead smart-ass.
@@TaeKenDo Your mum gey
Nothing can't be created!
@@willmpet Isn't that a double negative ? 'No (thing) can (not) be created.'