Discussion on the religious instinct

This is part of a discussion I had a while back with someone about why humanity seems to have a deeply set religious instinct…

If you take your own conscious experiences and compare it to inanimate matter, or the actions of a person and compare it to how inanimate objects behave, then it seems like there's not just one kind of thing out there - inanimate matter - there's possibly two fundamentally different kinds of things, because the former stuff seems so different to inanimate matter.

Because it seems like there are two fundamentally different things in existence, it becomes in some sense rational to suppose that inanimate matter comes from the other thing rather than the other thing comes from inanimate matter - possibly because they're so different and there's two options. Although I'm not exactly sure how this intuition about it being 'the other way around' happens.

Yeah, that's the rub, your intuition that it is the other way around. Why would you assume that to be the case when we can observe that matter exists regardless of whether or not it has the property of consciousness, but you do not observe the existence of consciousness without matter. Not to say that it is not a possibility, an immaterial self dependent consciousness but why assume it, since it leaves the question unanswered as to how does matter emerge from the immaterial?

Ah, so we observe that this 'other kind of stuff' - consciousness - seems to be dependent on matter, but matter doesn't seem to be dependent on consciousness, and matter seems to have come first, so you'd assume that matter comes first.

But there's still the issue of how consciousness/the subjective seems to be a fundamentally different kind of thing to matter, regardless of those two considerations. So, I guess, it's an easy thing to think of at least, for anyone, I mean, you just switch it around, matter=>mind becomes mind=>matter; it's very easy to do. So that helps it always be an option on the table, I believe, and maybe there being only two options gives it some additional reasonableness; I'm not sure how that works.

Two important issues are: as far as our observations go, matter seems to have come first, and, two, how can matter possibly emerge from an independent mind?

But they're not too powerful as objections, I believe. Our observations wouldn't include seeing mind come first if it did come first. And it's not like we ought to know how mind originates from matter because we're so smart, I mean, it also makes a lot of sense we wouldn't know how it does, or have any idea how, even if it was true.

Is belief in God natural?

Suppose I created a robot to pick up rocks and for some reason gave it consciousness. In that circumstance, it would be OK for that robot to feel an obligation to pick up rocks and have beliefs reflecting that desire, because that's what it's been programmed to do and think. In the same way, if God has programmed humans to believe in a 'divine reality', then it would be intellectually acceptable for humans to believe in a divine reality under that circumstance. We'd just be fulfilling our 'programming', which would make religious belief perfectly fine regardless of other considerations.

But what if such a God doesn't exist? If there's only a 1% chance of such a God existing, then this viewpoint should sound silly.

Yet, it's not silly to affirm this point of view if there's a 90% chance of such a God existing.

So then what are the chances that there is a God who wires religious belief in this way? If it's 90%, then we can easily affirm the point-of-view described above. If it's 50% or a bit less, then maybe we can believe that it applies to us but in a way that leaves room for a fair amount of doubt.

If there's no evidence for or against God, then the principle of parsimony (if you can cut something out of an explanation without losing anything, cut it out) reduces the chance of God existing. But the chance that God exists does not thereby become nothing, because the debate about God is also part of a broader debate: is the realm of subjective experiences (mind) one of reality's accidents? Or something that has a place at the very foundation of reality? The latter idea will always be somewhat appealing to people in some form or other, even if it has no other evidence for it.

Also, a lot of believers would say that looking at the beauty of the natural world and the physical laws of the universe (the 'fine-tuning' argument), arguments from the big bang, other apologetics, etc., gives some evidence for a God. If so, then there would be a higher chance of a 'hard wiring' God existing.

What's the lowest chance that a 'hard wiring' God exists for believers to take the scenario above as seriously applying to humanity? In one study people found a 'reasonable doubt' that someone is guilty of a crime to exist at about a 25+% chance of innocence, given the evidence. I suppose that indicates you can get reasonable people believing in something with a 25+% likelihood that it's true. So if you bring this idea into the discussion, then there needs to be a 25+% chance of such a God existing for believers to take the scenario above seriously on purely rational grounds.

Why is religious thinking so common to people? Why God isn't going away

(above picture gives a summary, click on it to see it normal size)

There's a common idea out there that 'reasoning' and 'rationality' means something like 'secular reasoning,' or reasoning that excludes religious ideas. I don't really think that's the case. I would say that there are two kinds of reasoning that people engage in: 'inanimate object' based reasoning and 'Mind' based reasoning. The difference is like between working out where a ball is going to land, versus working out whether my friend would be offended if I said a particular thing. What people regard as the 'secular' view comes from looking at reality through 'inanimate object' based reasoning, and what people regard as 'spirituality' and 'religious thinking' comes from looking at reality through 'Mind' based' reasoning. Neither is inherently superior or inferior to the other.

If no mind is behind the universe, then inanimate matter must go 'all the way down' (like the turtles). That's why any consistent atheism-agnosticism position must put inanimate matter at the foundation of reality, from which you get everything else (universe, multiverse, people, etc.) Materialism doesn't just follow from atheism, it IS atheism in any really long explanation of what atheism must mean (otherwise some kind of 'super mind' would exist behind the universe in some sense). So atheism-agnosticism comes from viewing reality through 'inanimate object' based reasoning.

Religious thinking comes from viewing reality through 'mind-based' reasoning. It assumes that the foundations of reality are fundamentally mental - a mind like us. Not necessarily like us in our limitations, but 'something like consciousness.'

Either of these positions is an assumption. While atheist/materialists often accuse religious people of exploiting folk intuitive ideas of consciousness, a spiritualist/religious person could accuse an atheist of overemphasising 'inanimate object' based reasoning when they work out their view of reality.

This is why the religious instinct, religion, and religious forms of reasoning will never go away. Being conscious ensures that 'mind-based' explanations for reality will always make sense. The religious instinct is inseparable from consciousness and people viewing reality through 'consciousness' language over and above 'inanimate object' language. This means that although traditional religions may fade, spiritualism can never go away, or even probably, lessen much.

Is atheism the default position? (Short version)

...From a forum post

Doug, leaving aside the whole 'existence of God' question, you do believe that at the most basic level, reality is basically material, composed of inanimate matter, right? I'd imagine that all atheists would think that is probably the case, if they studied the issue. That seems like something really important to atheism. But it can't be said to be automatically the right position... wouldn't you have to say?

Longer article on this.

What is atheism? Is atheism the default position?

Podcast of this article.

According to a common view, belief in God is kind of like belief in a giant teapot circling the sun. Just like we would assume that the teapot doesn't exist if there's no evidence for a teapot flying around the sun, so if there is no evidence for a god then we should assume that a god does not exist.

But there's one more thing left to talk about when we think about the teapot. Say there's no teapot around the sun, then what *is* there? I'd assume empty space.

So the a-teapotist (as in a-theist) believes that there's empty space around the sun, and the teapotist assumes that there is a teapot.

If we carry the analogy to atheism, then an atheist believes that there's just the natural universe, rather than the natural universe plus a god, when people revert to atheism as the default position.

But there's something wrong with the above analysis. Atheism can't be the view that 'there is only the natural universe', because a lot of atheists maintain that there could be billions, trillions, even *infinite* numbers of other universes. These universes, some very different, some similar to our own, could explain the characteristics of our universe (see the multiverse theory). In other words, you can believe in many universes and definitely be an atheist.

So atheism has to include the possibility that there is *more* than just the natural universe. OK, then so what is atheism, exactly? Is it the view that there is just the universe and, possibly, a multiverse? In a sense yes, but there must be a better, more concise way of putting it...

Is atheism the view that a mind didn't create our universe?

Not necessarily, because we could be brains in a vat experiencing a virtual world, or computer programs like in the movie The Thirteenth Floor, and so technically our 'universe' is the product of a mind, and yet there is nothing that we would call a 'god'.

To be sure, the creators of such artificial realities would seem like 'gods' to us, but they aren't gods in any greater sense than we would be if we created our own artificial realities.

OK, so what is atheism? It has to include the possibility of a multiverse, and that the universe is the product of a mind, but not a 'god' mind (whatever that is).

What we are left with is that atheism is the view that no mind is behind *all* universes, behind every conceivable universe; behind every physical thing.

Another way of phrasing this is that atheism is the view that at the foundations of reality, at the most basic level, there is inanimate matter rather than 'conscious stuff'. A theist says that at the most basic level there is 'conscious stuff' (like our inner awareness, whatever that is) rather than matter.

So that's what atheism can be rephrased to without losing any of its meaning: the view that the foundations of existence are inanimate matter rather than conscious stuff.

So to go back to our original example, the teapotist says that there's a teapot around the sun, and the a-teapotist says that there's not. So what does the a-teapotist believe is there? They believe that there's just empty space of course!

So the theist says that there's a mysterious 'god', and the atheist says that there's not. So what does the atheist say is there? They believe that the foundations of existence are inanimate matter rather than conscious stuff. Otherwise a god exists in some sense (even if pantheistically).

I agree that the default position should be 'no god exists' in the absence of evidence for a god. That seems to be sound... but I don't see why the default position should be 'the foundations of existence are inanimate matter rather than conscious stuff'. Why should the foundations of reality be automatically assumed to be inanimate matter? Because that's all we can see? But we see ourselves and others as conscious beings... and we're pretty sure consciousness is quite different to matter. So to assume that there must be inanimate matter at the foundation of existence 'by default' seems a bit unwarranted.

So paradoxically, atheism both is and isn't the default position. The idea that there's no god is a default position, but the view that there's inanimate matter rather than consciousness at the foundation of reality seems unwarranted as a 'default position'.

It's likely that any argument to the 'existence is built upon matter' view could be doubted because of the experience of consciousness, which seems different to matter. Likewise, consciousness can't settle the question in favour of the 'existence is built upon mind' view, because it may just be that the universe was destined to create 'animate'/conscious matter.

What's worse for atheism is that in some ways it's hard to see the view of consciousness at the foundation of reality as anything less than the view that there is a god. Why? Because such a consciousness would probably have many god-like characteristics...

In the end, maybe there's no requirement that anyone be an atheist or a theist if there's no evidence for a god. It doesn't seem like we have an obligation to believe that the foundation of reality should be characterised a certain way, if what I've written has made sense.

So when viewed in an alternative way, that atheism is positively saying that there's inanimate stuff at the foundation of reality, it seems that neither atheism nor theism is the default position. We must simply assume that either there's inanimate stuff or consciousness at the foundations of reality based on what feels right to us. That could be what the religious instinct is all about: the feeling that there must be consciousness at the most basic level rather than 'empty' matter. And it's not clear that this view is basically silly. Actually, it seems like a pretty reasonable (50/50) guess at the nature of reality.

Podcast: What is atheism? Is atheism the default position?

Podcast Notes:

-Atheism isn't the position that there's only the universe, or that a mind didn't create the universe. It's the view that at a basic level the foundations of reality are made of matter rather than 'conscious stuff'. Christianity is a variant of the view that the foundations of reality are 'conscious stuff' rather than matter.
-Is God-belief totally unreasonable? It's often argued that the best argument for atheism is that there's no evidence for a god. But it may be more of a 50/50 thing rather than a slum-dunk for atheism if there's no evidence for a god. There possibly isn't a 'default position' on the issue.

Title: What is atheism?
Time: 13:43 minutes
Size: 6.3 MB mp3

Direct link to the audio file (Right click and 'Save As')
Link to the audio file page

Further Reading:

-An article on this.