I have no problem with possibility of gods existence

[newpolitics]

So what you are saying is much what the other poster is saying. That belief simply comes into being. That poster claims it comes from God. Where do you say it comes from?

Human nature is not much different than it was when the species first evolved. Beliefs have changed, but not how we react to conditions or the violence we exhibit. Our beliefs merely justify the behavior. As I have already said, there is not a single human behavior you might relate to one belief that I can't give an example of in another. There is no human action which is created by any given belief. I believe I kill because it is for "God" or "Mom and Apple Pie" - but the reality is that I kill because I am told to.

No one is saying belief simply comes into being. It starts by processing sensory data from the world around us, which we assimilate as information, and we become CONVINCED of a proposition about the world being true, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we are right. Belief formation is not usually voluntary, and is not a choice. I can not choose to believe I can fly, even if I wanted to. I know this to be impossible. Or, I believe the universe exists, but I can not know this. It could all be a simulation (the problem of hard solipsism) and there is no way to prove or disprove this. What you are suggesting flies in the face if epistemology. As I already said, our internal model of the exterior world, which is formed by our beliefs about the outer world, will affect how we interact with the exterior world, and this "interaction" is what we call "action." There is no way around this. Action, is different than belief, in that we don't have to act on our beliefs. We do have a choice. But even then, that is based on some belief that we have chosen was the better course of action for whatever reason. I can't think of a single instance in which an action is not referenced first against one's beliefs, except, as I said, in emergency instinctive reactions (removing ones hand from a hot stove top).

You have simply made a claim that belief follows action but failed to explain this at all, and dump responsibility for action on human nature. This is a placeholder for something you can not explain, and this is as vacuous as saying "god did it." You provide no mechanism for what determines our action, and hence no explanatory power. "Human nature" is not a causal explanation, but a descriptive one of a general set of behavioral characteristics associated with our species. Please provide a cause for generic action other than this, as it inadequately explains the phenomenon at hand.

I agree we become convinced by sensory input, but that is action. We are told certain things are true and we accept them, which is also action. Human beings are animals and we react to our environment as animals. If certain beliefs are re-enforced, we follow them. If we received negative re-enforcement we drop them. It's your basic Skinner box. I'm not sure how else to describe that in a brief manner other than calling it "human nature".

Belief is merely an example of human behavior, it is not a cause. One person will believe as strongly as another but will not cause anyone harm, while another person with exactly the same belief will kill. It is not the belief which does it, it is the nature of the person to resort to violence. Take away the belief and the violence does not go away, it just manifests in a different belief.

Most of us are quite capable of extreme violence. All we require is someone to tell us to do it. This too is merely an excuse. And, in fact, is exactly the same thing as a religious fanatic. After all, whether the order comes from God or from amorphous "leader", it all boils down to just following orders.

Belief is a noun, not a verb, therefore, belief is not action. These are two different categories of thought separated by this major distinction. More importantly, action is colloquially understood to mean an overt manifestation willed into being by agency, or some kind of will. You are equivocating on the meaning of action when you use it to describe the action of neurons and impulses which are involved in sensory perception and the formation of belief. These types of activities do not imply agency, as we have no control over our neurons firing, or the light coming into our eyes and our subsequent processing of that visual information. We do it automatically. Hence, you are you using two different definitions of "action" here. Without this equivocation, your position does not hold.

The fact that authorities have control over us and might induce us to commit violence by their authority alone (ie, Milgrim Experiments), certainly speaks to human behavior, but this does not preclude the necessity for belief, namely, the belief that whatever authorities tell, one must do. I'm not suggesting we all believe this currently, but we could be induced by fear, to accept such a proposition, given the right circumstances, as the Milgrim experiment suggests.

 

[PratchettFan]

No one is saying belief simply comes into being. It starts by processing sensory data from the world around us, which we assimilate as information, and we become CONVINCED of a proposition about the world being true, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we are right. Belief formation is not usually voluntary, and is not a choice. I can not choose to believe I can fly, even if I wanted to. I know this to be impossible. Or, I believe the universe exists, but I can not know this. It could all be a simulation (the problem of hard solipsism) and there is no way to prove or disprove this. What you are suggesting flies in the face if epistemology. As I already said, our internal model of the exterior world, which is formed by our beliefs about the outer world, will affect how we interact with the exterior world, and this "interaction" is what we call "action." There is no way around this. Action, is different than belief, in that we don't have to act on our beliefs. We do have a choice. But even then, that is based on some belief that we have chosen was the better course of action for whatever reason. I can't think of a single instance in which an action is not referenced first against one's beliefs, except, as I said, in emergency instinctive reactions (removing ones hand from a hot stove top).

You have simply made a claim that belief follows action but failed to explain this at all, and dump responsibility for action on human nature. This is a placeholder for something you can not explain, and this is as vacuous as saying "god did it." You provide no mechanism for what determines our action, and hence no explanatory power. "Human nature" is not a causal explanation, but a descriptive one of a general set of behavioral characteristics associated with our species. Please provide a cause for generic action other than this, as it inadequately explains the phenomenon at hand.

I agree we become convinced by sensory input, but that is action. We are told certain things are true and we accept them, which is also action. Human beings are animals and we react to our environment as animals. If certain beliefs are re-enforced, we follow them. If we received negative re-enforcement we drop them. It's your basic Skinner box. I'm not sure how else to describe that in a brief manner other than calling it "human nature".

Belief is merely an example of human behavior, it is not a cause. One person will believe as strongly as another but will not cause anyone harm, while another person with exactly the same belief will kill. It is not the belief which does it, it is the nature of the person to resort to violence. Take away the belief and the violence does not go away, it just manifests in a different belief.

Most of us are quite capable of extreme violence. All we require is someone to tell us to do it. This too is merely an excuse. And, in fact, is exactly the same thing as a religious fanatic. After all, whether the order comes from God or from amorphous "leader", it all boils down to just following orders.

Belief is a noun, not a verb, therefore, belief is not action. These are two different categories of thought separated by this major distinction. More importantly, action is colloquially understood to mean an overt manifestation willed into being by agency, or some kind of will. You are equivocating on the meaning of action when you use it to describe the action of neurons and impulses which are involved in sensory perception and the formation of belief. These types of activities do not imply agency, as we have no control over our neurons firing, or the light coming into our eyes and our subsequent processing of that visual information. We do it automatically. Hence, you are you using two different definitions of "action" here. Without this equivocation, your position does not hold.

The fact that authorities have control over us and might induce us to commit violence by their authority alone (ie, Milgrim Experiments), certainly speaks to human behavior, but this does not preclude the necessity for belief, namely, the belief that whatever authorities tell, one must do. I'm not suggesting we all believe this currently, but we could be induced by fear, to accept such a proposition, given the right circumstances, as the Milgrim experiment suggests.

Action is also a noun, so action is not an action?

I think you miss my point. Authorities do not have control over us. No one controls us but ourselves. You have the ability to say "no" anytime you want. We follow orders, no matter how much we might not like the actual job, because we want to follow orders. We are violent because we, as a species, are violent. The orders, the belief, the political position, the color of the sports shirt, are all just excuses to be what we want to be. So long as we ignore that basic nature and look for excuses to blame that nature on, like belief, we will never be able to get past that violence.