Cynical Skeptics - Gullible Believers.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Arent we all part of the same genetic equation?

As I see it, humans have "a need to believe". We can ascribe any idea we want to this fact, but in the end, I believe that we should be able to trace this need to its biological basis. For example, I think I have found the explanation for believing in a "god".

Social animals need a lider, either male or female, to guide them to greener lands.

What if for some human individuals this need to follow the alpha is stronger than for others? What if, being human, they need an authority that cant let them down?

As for skeptics, things are not that better for them (us, as in a way I must include myself in this camp). Skeptics are alpha's without anyone to folow them. Rejected by their own society, skeptics become cynical, laughting at any follower for not being as intelligent as they are.

DISCLAIMER: ;)

Im not referring to anyone in particular. Im trying to draw the behavior of the "typical" believer and skeptic, not saying that everyone is the same. We are all believers, we are all skeptics. We all share the same needs and deal with them as best as we can.

[Loss Leader]

As for skeptics, things are not that better for them (us, as in a way I must include myself in this camp). Skeptics are alpha's without anyone to folow them. Rejected by their own society, skeptics become cynical, laughting at any follower for not being as intelligent as they are.

I do not see any evidence for these statements. What evidence leads you to say that skeptics are alphas? What is your evidence that skeptics are without anyone to follow them? How have you arrived at the conclusion that skeptics are rejected by their own society? What psychological studies indicate that skeptics become cynical? What evidence leads you to conclude that skeptics laugh at any follower? Why do you believe the reason skeptics laugh at followers is that they are not as intelligent?

None of these statements seem at all obvious to me. Not agreeing with these various premises, I cannot agree with your conclusion.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

None of these statements seem at all obvious to me. Not agreeing with these various premises, I cannot agree with your conclusion.

Thanks for reading then. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As I see it, humans have "a need to believe". We can ascribe any idea we want to this fact, but in the end, I believe that we should be able to trace this need to its biological basis.

And I think that humans have "a need to know". There are good evolutionary reasons for this. Sometimes understanding the answer is within the ability of the human tribes to truly understand. And thus we get stone tools to chip more stone tools. and sometimes it's not and we invent things to explain. So we get beings in the sky creating thunder.

Children ask, "Why?" Skeptics ask, "Why?" Don't slough either of us off with fololishness.

[monkey]

Skeptics are alpha's without anyone to folow them.

I'm sure that many would just as easily be followers, but for there being less options available to them for following.

And I will also have to disagree with your premise. These types of arguments can become very condescending, as they typically will boil down to ""People have a need to believe suchandsuch....oh except us because we're special".

[Jeff Corey]

Arent we all part of the same genetic equation?

As I see it, humans have "a need to believe". We can ascribe any idea we want to this fact, but in the end, I believe that we should be able to trace this need to its biological basis...
I was never impressed by appeals to vague "biological" bases to things like the need to believe. Hunger, thirst, escape from pain, and the sex drive have concrete biological bases.
Also the need for some primo weed to appreciate stoner philosophy.

[Moochie]

I was never impressed by appeals to vague "biological" bases to things like the need to believe. Hunger, thirst, escape from pain, and the sex drive have concrete biological bases.
Also the need for some primo weed to appreciate stoner philosophy.


In another time and another place, I'd nominate the above. :D

M.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm sure that many would just as easily be followers, but for there being less options available to them for following.

Yes. Thats what I think. Still, the more skeptical you are the less possible for you to find someone to follow. Im making assumption here (for the guy who answered here that "facts" are waay important), the skepticism Im talking about is related to, at least, two things: critical thinking and good self esteem. There are other kind of "skeptics", the ones who like to follow the real skeptics, because, for them, skeptics are "cool", or at least, less prone to be object of jokes.

And I will also have to disagree with your premise. These types of arguments can become very condescending, as they typically will boil down to ""People have a need to believe suchandsuch....oh except us because we're special".

Thats very true. And look the forum again, some "skeptics" here do believe they are special (more intelligent than believers or whatever). ;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I was never impressed by appeals to vague "biological" bases to things like the need to believe. Hunger, thirst, escape from pain, and the sex drive have concrete biological bases.

Why is it "vague"? because I do not tell wich genes are related to the behaviour? If you appeal to some form of naturalism you will have to believe that, in the end, every human behaviour (no matter how complex it appears to be, or perhaps more correctly, no matter how many words we use to describe it) has it foundation in genetics.

Would you say that the need fo follow the alpha has no biological basis???

[Jeff Corey]

Why is it "vague"? because I do not tell wich genes are related to the behaviour? If you appeal to some form of naturalism you will have to believe that, in the end, every human behaviour (no matter how complex it appears to be, or perhaps more correctly, no matter how many words we use to describe it) has it foundation in genetics.

Would you say that the need fo follow the alpha has no biological basis???

The statement that every human behavior has its foundation in genetics, while true, is trivial with respect to this discussion. Our brain is quite obviously a product of our genetic heritage.
You originally said that the need to believe was biological. That in no way helps us understand where it comes from.
A century ago, it was popular with some scientists to explain all aspects of human behavior by making up an instinct for each of them. You are essentially saying there is a "need to believe" and a "follow the alpha" instinct.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You originally said that the need to believe was biological. That in no way helps us understand where it comes from.


I see your point. Thanks. Still, I believe Im stating a general feeling more than proposing definitions. I call it intuition, and I believe that Im often correct. ;)