I have noticed that any question about religion is answered by quotations from the scriptures or from some established authority, preferably an ancient. Reasoned reactions to such answers are met with supplemental quotations instead of reasoned statements. This pattern is so consistent that some explanation seems required. Here, I offer one for your consideration.
     Consider, please, the gosling that, by a process called imprinting, accepts the first object it sees on hatching as its mother, be it a shoe, a fox or its veridical mother goose. I think we humans may receive a similar imprinting when first we encounter a religion, usually through our parents, before we reach the age of reason. That would explain why we cling to teachings that do not correspond to reality, even in the face of solid contravening evidence.
     I will not defend this proposition; it is offered solely for discussion.
Seán

Sounds familiar - I've noticed that pattern, too.

Henry

Sean,

That sounds reasonable to me too. I've noticed though that some people have a greater resistance to such imprinting and to arguments from authority than others. They may accept them in their childhood and early teens, but find them unacceptable as they grow older. But others--and we've all run into them, online if nowhere else--not only accept such arguments but seem to spend most of their waking hours trying to cram them down everyone else's throat--i.e. proselytizing. They not only never outgrow their early imprinting but continue trying to imprint others for their entire adult lives.

I believe it's a matter of temperment. There really is an authoritarian type and a non-authoritarian or autonomous type. I know which category I belong to, and I thank the Goddess for it every single day!!!

--Linda

Loving yourself is the key to making open minded choices about what you believe. What you are seeing, Sean, may be people that don't have self confidence. Their identities are mixed in with what they believe, instead of separate. If you strengthen the identity of the person, then you weaken their tendency towards blind choices. The most successful cults are the ones which make members feel guilty or dependent. I don't know of any that don't do that. Probably the best way to reduce the strength of cults is by showing parents how to make their kids internally strong.

In chicks it is very simple, but in human beings imprinting is what creates our identities. There is now a lot of great research about it. For example: if you are constantly traumatized by not being accepted in society it imprints upon you a perception that you have something wrong with you. You are then not interested in making your choices and want to rely upon someone else. (Some cults reinforce this by sending members door to door, make them witness to their friends, etc -- resulting in instant rejection & further dependency upon the cult) If on the other hand, you are able to love yourself then that is another imprinting. You are willing to take risks and place a lot of value on your decisions. If decisions that you make have good results, then you are imprinted by that. The effects of imprinting seem to vary a lot from sex to sex, but it is really down to predisposition of specific individuals. There is no blanket description that describes everybody.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
     Consider, please, the gosling that, by a process called imprinting, accepts the first object it sees on hatching as its mother, be it a shoe, a fox or its veridical mother goose. I think we humans may receive a similar imprinting when first we encounter a religion, usually through our parents, before we reach the age of reason. That would explain why we cling to teachings that do not correspond to reality, even in the face of solid contravening evidence.Seán

The imprinting begins with our parents and whatever religious culture they come from. It is not separate from them until a deliberate choice is to expose the kids to religious education. Not until third grade do the kids get to test making religious choices, as opposed to limit setting. There are examples from earlier agesl, however, i.e. Jimmy Swaggart finding the Lord at age 5.

Donald

     Psychological imprinting is a special kind of learning that typically occurs in early life; it is rapidly acquired, and notably insusceptible to forgetting or alteration. It differs in this way from indoctrination and conditioning, both of which can be reversed by psychotherapeutic methods.
     Some devout people cling immutably to beliefs that are demonstrably impossible. That is why I thought the unyielding kind of faith that contravenes reality might possibly involve imprinting, or something very like it. No matter what the gosling believes, that rubber boot is not its mother.
Seán

Some of this is likely just built into people's personalities. The SJ personality naturally is into a higher authority and questioning the details of that authority just isn't a natural thing to do. SPs tend to be pragmatic and want to see it with their own eyes. NTs are more into science. The NFs can be spiritual but it can turn out quite different than the parents intented. Strict Christian parents can have very rebellious kids.

-- John G.

Nice to meet you, bluelamp. Not sure I agree with passing it off onto personality types. I think of imprinting as one of the factors of personality, not the other way around. We're all so much alike. Personality is a nice way of saying what is wrong with you whilst emphasizing your positives.

If you want an example of somebody arguing from "authority", check out the last month or two of replies on this blog thread:

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/

Henry

What is the "age of reason" by the way? Some days I'm not sure I'm there yet...

Children are taught myths about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and so forth. They outgrow the first three but often keep the latter two. What has always puzzled me is why beliefs in some of these persist into adulthood and senility, when they're all equally ridiculous.

I'm speaking here, of course, of the standard beliefs, not exotic redefinitions of God as the Universe or "the best of us"--what most people say they believe in: a God interested in human affairs, responsive to prayers, passing judgment on us when we die, etc.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by También:
Nice to meet you, bluelamp. Not sure I agree with passing it off onto personality types. I think of imprinting as one of the factors of personality, not the other way around. We're all so much alike. Personality is a nice way of saying what is wrong with you whilst emphasizing your positives.

Hi También, from twin studies, personality is considered to be about 50% genetic (and the other 50% is usually considered to be from bouncing around in utero). Two of the 4 Jungian traits can be determined for babies (I got them correct for my son).

The other two you can usually determine at about 5 years old (apparently all toddlers act like SFs even when they aren't). I haven't really determined this for my well past 5 son yet (he may actually be an SF).

One can mature in all traits; education, job, peer pressure, etc. can mature you more in traits you aren't biased toward.

-- John G.

quote:

What is the "age of reason" by the way? Some days I'm not sure I'm there yet.—CompGuy

Jeff,
     The Age of Reason varies depending on the culture but, speaking generally, it is the stage at which a person is deemed capable of distinguishing right from wrong. One might define it as the age at which doing what comes naturally can land a chap in jail.
     As you say, children are taught myths about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and the like. That they outgrow the first three, but often keep the latter two, is the focus of my hypothesis. I am suggesting that there is a qualitative difference in the kind of learning that makes childish myths transiently believed and the learning that renders another belief indelible. Religion, per se, is not necessarily a factor: Many people cling tenaciously to the belief that having a black cat cross their path is an evil omen; and they retain the conviction even when they know objectively there is no basis for it. Another example is the way some atheists concentrate on disbelief in the Judeao-Christian God while neglecting hordes of others deities who are equally worthy of rejection.
     My hypothesis suggests that a special kind of learning, called imprinting must be required to create beliefs unalterable by facts or circumstances. (Note that imprinting is a term in general use to describe such learning, but that no one understands the molecular basis of an imprint.) The usefulness of hypotheses lies in the fact that they are testable: If they can reliably predict an outcome, they lead to greater knowledge. If they fail, the person who proposed them should quickly sweep them under the carpet , look innocent, and deny he ever thought of such as thing. In this instance a useful test would be to query a sampling of believers concerning the exact circumstances that established their belief. A control group of certifiable atheists could be examined in like manner to learn if under identical circumstances their beliefs had failed to take or, equally significant, if they had failed to experience the conditions essential for imprinting. As a follow-up, the brains of both groups could be sectioned and examined for differences in neuronal patterns, but that would have to wait, of course.
Seán

quote:

Another example is the way some atheists concentrate on disbelief in the Judeao-Christian God while neglecting hordes of others deities who are equally worthy of rejection.

I think you're misreading that completely. In fact, most atheists point out that those who are religious agree with atheists about the non-existence of Zeus and Thor and many other deities. The question, then, is why the religious don't also agree with atheists about their particular fantasy of choice. IF atheists try to talk about beliefs with the religious, there's little point in discussing Zeus and Thor and the Easter Bunny--the discussion is about the differences in belief and the reasons for those differences, rather than the areas of agreement.

The same sort of imprinting seems to be in effect for political differences too, by the way. For example,

quote:

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/ob...ep10,0,2687256.story

Or, as Gilbert & Sullivan put it,

quote:

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!


When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

That's from Iolanthe...

Jeff

Bluelamp, I did not know about the 50%. We develop personalities early in life and continue to develop them until the end. I'm 100% convinced that if children are invested with a strong sense of self worth, then they ought to be immune to perpetual enslavement of circled-wagons-style-religion-and-politics.

quote:

If atheists try to talk about beliefs with the religious, there's little point in discussing Zeus and Thor and the Easter Bunny--the discussion is about the differences in belief and the reasons for those differences, rather than the areas of agreement.—CompGuy

     That seems sensible to me; I concede your point. By the same logic atheists in India would smite Vishnu hip and thigh but refrain from mentioning Yahweh, of whom the faithful there have never heard, or, if they've heard, exclude from in their beliefs.

quote:

The same sort of imprinting seems to be in effect for political differences too, by the way.—ibid.

     Again, I am inclined to agree. The fervor with which constituents embrace the tenets of their parties suggests imprinting rather than the result of reasoning and study. It does seem a bit excessive, though, to define the broad range of differences between liberal and conservative mentalities on the basis of their responses to a letter flashed upon a screen. Dr. David Amodio, the lead author of the paper you have cited has expressed similar reservations.
     The insight offered by Gilbert & Sullivan in Iolanthe,
"...every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!"
cogently states the fact. I wish it explained the mechanism that brings about the difference.
Seán