Believing Untruths

How is it possible for the brain to believe absolute nonsense? It is possible because we possess both primitive and modern parts to our brain	Creation myths from around the world
From: R. S. To: Mario Salvatore Di Maggio Sent: Friday, 13 March, 2009 20:38:08 Subject: i first thought this was weird... ...but then realised it isn't really when you think about religion: http://www.slate.com/id/2213353/?GT1=38001 Fk it. It's SO disappointing I didn't even finish reading it. I remember discovering similar beliefs held in Scotland amongst farmers about leaving parts of their land free for the elve people, etc. It's just unbelievable how fed up our two semi-independent brains are - totally, totally f**ed up. Who says the brain is 'the most wonderful machine in the Universe' when you consider all the absolute tripe it continually insists on generating....? :-( Damn, survival must be SUCH A PREMIUM for the brain to lower itself to such base levels. Then again, if you think about it, as you say - IT IS! What could possibly be more important than survival at all costs? - logic? clear-thinking? reason? Yeah right..... xxxx
From Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 72: Feedback: Experience vs. Science Over the years, I've received several letters similar to the following, each claiming they know from firsthand experience that something is true despite what science might have to say about the subject: I have been reading topics on your site. I appreciate much of it, enjoy the humor and like the critical thinking aspect of it. However, there is one point that kind of bothers me. What I dislike about scientists and those who promote science is the tendency to deny individual experience. I know for a fact, from consistent experience long before Rupert Sheldrake mentioned it, that I have felt, I do feel and I will feel when others are looking at me. Now, sometimes it can be explained as that I have heard something and then I look back at someone or that sometimes that I may see others out of the corner of my eye. But, here's my point: There have been numerous occasions where I have distinctly felt the sensation of someone looking at me and then checked this sensation visually and confirmed that it was so. Now, how can that be called anecdotal just because scientists don't have the wherewithal to conduct the proper test and to confirm this phenomenon. I think that scientists are just theoretically challenged! First, we're not really neutral observers of our own experience, are we? In some cases, scientists do have the wherewithal to test claims. Randomized double-blind experiments are conducted to mitigate our inherent bias and tendency toward self-deception. Several such tests have been done on the staring effect with mixed results. Sheldrake seems to always get positive results for his paranormal tests, whether he's testing humans and staring or dogs who know when their owners are coming home. Skeptics like Richard Wiseman gets negative results. Critics have found fault with Sheldrake's randomization methods. Sheldrake finds fault with his critics. In any case, the staring effect is certainly testable by scientists and we need not rely on our interpretation of our experiences. Nor should we always rely on what seems obvious to us from experience. We often arrive at beliefs without careful consideration of what is actual or true. Were naturally driven to be selective about the information we draw from experience and we then combine it with information that has been selectively remembered. The result is that we produce new beliefs that are generally consistent with our old beliefs. We might end up with a set of consistent beliefs that are functional, but they are as likely to be false as true. Furthermore, these functional beliefs, even if false, will condition how we interpret future experiences and what data we selectively store in memory. In light of this, we should be skeptical of taking all our perceptions and memories at face value. We should be ready and able to examine what psychological and logical processes drive us to our beliefs, whether they be scientific or paranormal or supernatural. Many people can do this but won't because they are not disposed to ask questions or look for rational explanations. Such people tend to be dogmatic and not inquisitive. They have strong opinions and are not inclined to doubt what they believe. For example, they would rather reject double-blind experimentation than give up their belief in such things as applied kinesiology. They would rather accept a ludicrous rationalization than admit they were wrong. They know what's true and nothing you say can change their mind. For example, a new reader recently wrote to me: You are a real idiot; only a college educated man could be such an idiot as you definitely are. I hope there is no afterlife for you. I personally have seen a good friend AFTER he died and he conveyed info only he, not me, would have known, as I found out later. You could have had this experience and still said it was unreal. None of your education can explain what happened to me. He's personally seen a ghost and the ghost told him things that only the ghost would have known. Trying to get such a person to consider alternative interpretations to what he experienced, if he did indeed experience what he says he did, would be like trying to nail pudding to the wall. Without skepticism and open-mindedness about our own experiences and memories, critical thinking can't happen. We can see and hear things that aren't there. And we can find meaning and significance in things that have no meaning or significance except what we give to them. If you're not willing to learn all you can about perception and how the brain works, you cannot think critically about your own experiences. If you're not willing to study psychology and learn about things like subjective validation and confirmation bias, you cannot think critically about "meaningful coincidences" and other similar things. It should go without saying that scientists also must be careful how they interpret their experiences, even if they are very controlled experiences.
A snippet from an interview with neuroscientist Paul MacLean attempts to sum it up: "While the neo-cortex, with its sensory equipment, surveys the outer world, the limbic system takes its cues from within. It has a loose grip on reality." In the 1940's MacLean became fascinated with the "limbic storms" suffered by patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy. 'During seizures,' he recalls, 'they'd have this Eureka feeling all out of context - feelings of revelation, that this is the truth, the absolute truth, and nothing but the truth.' All on its own, without the reality check of the neo-cortex, the limbic system seems to produce sensations of deja-vu or jamais-vu, sudden memories, waking dreams, messages from God, even religious conversions. 'You know what bugs me most about the brain?' MacLean says suddenly. 'It's that the limbic system, this primitive brain that can neither read nor write, provides us with the feeling of what is real, true and important. And this disturbs me, because this inarticulate brain sits like a jury and tells this glorified computer up there, the neo-cortex, "Yes, you can believe this."' - The 3-Pound Universe, Hooper and Teresi, pp 48-9

Wonderful, more in-depth considerations of this phenomenon:
Why Is Religion Natural?
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die


"People's desire to believe in the paranormal is stronger than all the evidence that it does not exist" - Susan Blackmore

Thought For the Day by The View From Number 80 March 23rd 2005 A while back Number 80 said that religion was to be tolerated, but respect was out of the question. Now even the tolerance is looking endangered. This feeling has been triggered by no one thing in particular but is a consequence of the steady day-by-day, drip-drip assault by religious fantasists on everything we have gained in the last 300 years. They are doing their damnedest to snuff out the Enlightenment. What right has a self-righteous, celibate, middle-aged man, his head stuffed full of impossible nonsense, have to dictate what is admissible in a sex education class? What is it with religion and sex? Why does God keep poking his nose into people's genitalia? It's downright weird. What right does some misogynist mullah, his head stuffed full of slightly different impossible nonsense, have to dictate to women what to wear because he and his bearded followers cannot restrain their lust at the sight of a well-turned ankle. Leave the women alone and go have a cold shower you are the problem, not they. There has been a deal too much tolerance in the name of inclusivity and multiculturalism. If someone is talking irrational crap they need to be told so, regardless of whether they wear a clerical collar, a mitre or any of the other badges and odd costumes that identify many religionists. If a group of bigots decides to foist its tight-assed views on the rest of the community as to what is deemed acceptable in movies, the theatre, or in print, they should be told to shove it, in no uncertain terms. Just because someone harbours an assortment of irrational and contradictory beliefs between their ears does not mean they are necessarily worthy of a hearing. Let them explain on their own behalf and not keep claiming holy endorsement for their own particular hang-ups, prejudices and phobias. Governments such as Tony Blair's should stop soliciting the opinions of these unrepresentative know-alls on legislation, for the chances are they actually know even less than the average politician. Anyone who claims certain knowledge of the mind of a supernatural being does not need respect they need psychiatric help to stand on their own two feet and stop appealing to a dubious authority to give weight to what are no more than personal opinions. Just because you believe that there is something beyond the physical world which is all our instruments and senses can detect it does not make you special in any way. If anything, you are to be pitied for being unable to appreciate our amazing Universe without your religious crutch. A single image of countless galaxies captured by the Hubble conveys more awe and mystery than any Iron Age tribal god, even if these days the old boy is tricked out as the universal creator. Irrational beliefs are not admirable, they are a threat to the future of humankind and the rest of the biosphere. You only have one life, this is not a rehearsal, there is no heaven with angels serenading, nor is there a paradise with 72 willing virgins waiting to reward acts of murder. No one is getting raptured out of here, you are not "chosen." Deluded, perhaps, but not chosen. You do not need the promise of a reward after death to live a good and kind life nor do you need threats of hellfire. Sympathy for others, charity and kindness are possible without religion the so-called Golden Rule is not solely a religious command; it is a humane way of living, common to many cultures. No one religion or faith has the answers, in fact none of them have, and the sooner we realize that we are all in this together, groping our way towards a better life for everyone on this planet and not just a chosen few, the better for humankind and the creatures with whom we share this planet.