…and this is a 
So true and so hilarious: a study has found that god speaks with a remarkably egocentric voice. In tests that asked people what god's opinion of various matters was, the unsurprising discovery was that it was the same as the individual's opinion — and of course every person's opinion was different. You'd expect some consistency if they were all hearing god's word, you would think!
It fits with the typical vision of the sockpuppeteer, too: the loser whose opinions are indefensible, so he invents an army of aliases to agree with him. And what more powerful sockpuppet could there be than to have your arm up a god's butt?
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Am I Evil | December 1, 2009 12:24 PM
God just told me that you might have a point here.
Posted by: chgo_liz | December 1, 2009 12:27 PM
Love your concluding paragraph!
Posted by: Aaron P | December 1, 2009 12:27 PM
Hilarious! who would have thought?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 1, 2009 12:29 PM
We keep telling theists to pay attention to neurology not evolution because it is going to pull the rug right out from under their feet. This study signals a coming deathblow to divine revelation.
Posted by: Zeno | December 1, 2009 12:30 PM
This makes a lot of sense. I guess it puts me at a disadvantage that my god doesn't exist, while my parents' god is an extremely right-wing Republican. I'm really out-gunned. My folks don't accept logic and evidence as counter-arguments, so I'm really screwed.
My only hope is that Mom & Dad's god is a terrible under-achiever: He somehow neglected to save His Chosen Nation from the tyranny of a freely elected Democratic president. (Horrors!)
Posted by: Peptron | December 1, 2009 12:31 PM
This is the one big thing I do not get about religion: how can people claim to know what God wants? Especially on very specific matters like cooking and flower arrangement.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 12:31 PM
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . . ."
-The Wizard of Oz
Great line, even though I never cared much for that movie.
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: Lynna | December 1, 2009 12:31 PM
All the god-addled men that I know do agree on one thing: God tells them that women need to be sweet, speak softly, and practice "meticulous obedience".
On the other hand, I came to the conclusion long ago that every person sitting in a congregation, any congregation, anywhere, is worshipping a different god.
Posted by: Glenn | December 1, 2009 12:31 PM
This is one of those studies where the conclusion could have been inferred without going through the scientific method, but it is good to have some more scientific evidence to back up an anti-theistic argument.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 1, 2009 12:32 PM
That figures. That god fellah is an immoral fecker.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 1, 2009 12:33 PM
We didn't really need a study for that.
But of course the reason is that God speaks to each individual in a way that he can understand, yadda yadda. I mean, that's really the kind of excuses you get for it.
Still, as long as God is busy telling you that you're right, why would you wish to question him?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Rieux | December 1, 2009 12:41 PM
I officially accuse PZ of writing all of the above comments himself and fabricating people called (e.g.) "Zeno" and "Glen Davidson" to credit them to. For shame.
Posted by: Tim Danaher | December 1, 2009 12:42 PM
As Susan B. Anthony put it:
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Posted by: Anon | December 1, 2009 12:42 PM
And Myers' comment section thereby erupts into the lock-step cheers of an army of sockpuppets. Neither he nor his sycophantic fanboys have an ear for irony.
Posted by: Sprezzatura | December 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Rieux @ #12 is clearly right. I hear he's also extraordinarily good looking, as well.
Posted by: Rieux | December 1, 2009 12:45 PM
Bloody hell: Anon @ #14 actually believes what I wrote @ #12.
Or, more likely, (s)he has no idea what "sockpuppet" means.
Posted by: Harmless Eccentric
|
December 1, 2009 12:46 PM
@Anon: I object to being labelled one of PZ's sycophantic fanboys. I am a sycophantic fanGIRL.
Posted by: Dawn | December 1, 2009 12:47 PM
Nah. The picture of a bearded guy is actually a sham. PZ Myers must be a woman, if I'm a sockpuppet. (Or else, those years of pregnancy and childbirth were all a dream...)
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 1, 2009 12:49 PM
Anon, tu quoque.
And you (presumably) believe in a ridiculous superstition derived from the mythology of Bronze Age goat-herding nomads.
Posted by: Urmensch | December 1, 2009 12:51 PM
And all this time atheists have been accused of rejecting God just so they can be their own God.
Posted by: Peptron | December 1, 2009 12:52 PM
They should make an existential movie script with that. Man, woman or diety, after living years in the dark, finds out/is being told to, that all that time, he was merely a sockpuppet.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 1, 2009 12:53 PM
Anon@14, please refresh yourself on the actual meanings of the terms 'sockpuppet' and 'irony', and try again.
Don't give up, though - someday, if you apply yourself, then you really might earn a seat at the big kids' table.
Posted by: IBY | December 1, 2009 12:53 PM
Heh, the study validated what I had thought for a long time. At last I have a solid ground to stand on.
Posted by: Felix | December 1, 2009 12:58 PM
Anon,
I note you have not found a way to criticize the blog post itself, or the content of the study. So, whose sockpuppet are you ? :)
If you aren't a sockpuppet, it still remains that you're someone else's (an imaginary friend who happens to agree with you perchance?) sycophant who regularly posts here to mock occasional consensus without presenting any argument. Methinks that's a worse sort of sycophantism. Your unthinking mockery vs. others's informed agreement: think about it.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | December 1, 2009 12:59 PM
God wants you to shut up now.
Posted by: Jim | December 1, 2009 1:03 PM
As G'Kar on Babylon 5 said: "Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do!"
Posted by: Peptron | December 1, 2009 1:03 PM
@Peptron #21
I was thinking about just that! Great minds think alike!
Posted by: Damian | December 1, 2009 1:05 PM
To be absolutely fair, as Steven Novella suggests, you would likely find the same thing if you "substitute[d] some other authority for God, like the scientific consensus, leading experts, or Einstein." I think that he might well be right, although, as he then goes on to say:
And it would be very interesting to see if you could actually work out who, if anybody, is more dedicated to the process than the belief. A sort of skeptic test, if you will.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 1:06 PM
I sometimes ask believers "Is there any issue on which you disagree with God?" They usually find the question incredible, but it would be a perfectly reasonable question to ask if God really was some other person, an authority figure whom they try to understand and obey. Sometimes they will eagerly tell me about a time when they thought God was wrong about something, but later they found out that no, God had been right all along. But never in the present.
No, I take that back. I've had a few very nice Christians tell me that the whole concept of Hell upsets them, and they really hope that God either changes His mind about damnation, or means something other than what they think He means. That's rare: usually such a Christian would somehow 'know' that God wouldn't let anyone be damned that they wouldn't want to be damned, too.
Posted by: raven | December 1, 2009 1:08 PM
At least PZ Myers exists in the real world.
Anon is a sockpuppet for an imaginary being he made up. One who hates scientists, women, gays, shellfish, and Democrats among others. A bit auto-incestuous really.
Hey anon. How do you walk around with your hand up your butt?
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 1:12 PM
As it always has been, my god wants what I want and not the other way around. Not new, but nice to see it supported with research.
Posted by: Tark | December 1, 2009 1:14 PM
Kookla, Fran and Anon?
(Perhaps I am showing my age here.)
And where is that Snuffleupigus anyway?
His voice was how I always expected god to sound,
or maybe that was Orson Welles.... soooo many voices in my head.
If you had many sockpuppets couldn't we just lose some in the great cosmic laundry?
Tax Religion.
Tark
Posted by: LtStorm | December 1, 2009 1:15 PM
I remember hearing about the theory that religion sprung out of a re-wiring of the connection between the halves of the brain that caused our progenitors to "hear" the "voice" of the other half of the brain and mistake it for a Divine Presence, thus kick-starting the concept of religion.
Has there been any further work done on that, or was that theory shot down alongside the Aquatic Ape Theory and such?
Posted by: Fcaccin | December 1, 2009 1:18 PM
They needed a study to know that?
Next time, they'll tell us that the Earth is round.
Posted by: Anonymouse | December 1, 2009 1:21 PM
anon - we're not sockpuppets, we're meatpuppets!
urmensch #20 - Bingo! Something I haven't thought of but hits the mark!
Hopefully, more studies about this subject would come out.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 1:22 PM
LtStorm,
That sounds rather like, or at least related to, Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, which I've long meant to read but haven't yet. Dawkins mentions it in TGD as "one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between. Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets!"
According to Dawkins, Jaynes suggests that pre-1000 BCE, people in general interpreted their verbal thoughts as the voice of gods - and we only became conscious in the modern sense when some bright spark realised this was not so.
Posted by: LtStorm | December 1, 2009 1:25 PM
Knockgoats:
Yes, that was it, it was Dawkins I heard quoted about it. Thank you. I couldn't remember enough or any names that would allow me to look it up myself.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 1:26 PM
My only hope is that Mom & Dad's god is a terrible under-achiever: He somehow neglected to save His Chosen Nation from the tyranny of a freely elected Democratic president. (Horrors!) - Zeno
He's testing their faith. If they remain strong in the Lord, he'll anoint Palin/Jindal in 2012!
Posted by: otrame
|
December 1, 2009 1:27 PM
Re: hearing voices
I heard a voice in my head once (only once, honest). I was following my 6 year old home from a friend's house. He was on his bike and I was in my car (we were going to go pick up his dad next). I witnessed my kid get hit by a car.
The voice in my head, which I heard very distinctly, said, "Your baby is in this car. Turn off the ignition, and put the parking break on before you get out."
Which I did. My kid was hardly bruised. Everything was fine (except I had flashbacks for a couple of days).
I believe it was just myself making sure that the panicking part of me took care of the baby too, but I can understand how a theist would think it was god.
Posted by: Peri_P_Laneta | December 1, 2009 1:30 PM
aratina cage @ #4: based on the premise of PZ's last paragraph, I think substituting "proctology" for "neurology" would provide a more logical and persuasive argument.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:32 PM
While on a very basic level this might have merit, the conclusions derived from scientific consensus, leading experts, or Einstein are far less arbitrary, are derived in a far more logical and reasoned way, and are subject to being falsified... within that context, it's hardly fair to even make the comparison.
Not a jab at you or your point, necessarily, Damian... but I did want to clarify.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 1:35 PM
Remember Barb the Banned? Her sense of morals was better developed than her god's. It was pitiful to watch.
Posted by: Dawn | December 1, 2009 1:41 PM
@Tark...oy, I remember that show....
And I loved Snuffy. I was really too old to watch when Sesame Street came out, but my sister and cousins were all the right age, so I had a perfectly legit reason to watch...I was babysitting them, right,? Right?
Posted by: heddle | December 1, 2009 1:41 PM
Sastra #29,
I find it a perfectly reasonable question and my answer would be many, many things. The most obvious is that, at least given what I know, if I were God I would save everyone. I don't know why he doesn't.
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 1:42 PM
Peptron @ #6
What god wants, god gets, god help us all.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 1, 2009 1:43 PM
God is a sockpuppet for a lazy troll.
Everyone knows a true sockpuppeteer creates characters not just for allies but also for enemies. I suppose that might be Satan?
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 1:45 PM
#45:
You'd be surprised how often I hear that song in my head when listening to preachers....
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 1:48 PM
And somehow this insight spread around the entire world…?
:-S
Posted by: God | December 1, 2009 1:49 PM
I, a sockpuppet?
Never!
I deny this accusation, and you know it's true because I, God, say so!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 1:50 PM
A thoughtful and honest comment, heddle...
But, are you honestly sure you don't know why?
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 1, 2009 1:52 PM
No wonder God has never talked to me.
I'm not into fisting.
Posted by: Jack | December 1, 2009 1:54 PM
There are some exceptions. One woman told me that, while she believes god is against gays, she is not. She opposes them but only on his orders, nothing personal.
Posted by: Satan | December 1, 2009 1:54 PM
I must heartily agree. I am God's sockpuppet. God is not My sockpuppet.
Or is He?
Posted by: LtStorm | December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
Sounds like deflection. "Well, *I* don't hate you, but I'm required to, it's not personal."
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
The hitman model of evil: it's nothing personal, it's just business.
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
But is this real "disagreement" with God, or just cognitive dissonance, or psychological displacement?
Posted by: F
|
December 1, 2009 2:02 PM
# 47:
Actually, I'd be none too surprised at all, if you are a person who connects with that work. (I am particularly fond of Part 3 of that song.)
Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 1, 2009 2:04 PM
heddle @44,
Not that you asked me, but the reason why God doesn't save everyone is that He wasn't really built for that sort of thing.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 1, 2009 2:04 PM
"I still don't like gays but I can't defend that prejudice as anything other than 'yuck,' so: it's because of God!"
Posted by: Damian | December 1, 2009 2:05 PM
I actually agree with that, and I have often made the point that, unless a person has compelling reasons to reject the scientific consensus (i.e. unless they have put in the required work to first understand the issue), then there is a moral imperative to, at the very least, accept that consensus more so than that of the pseudo-skeptics.
And that is why I always ask people to outline as much science as they possibly can, whenever I encounter someone who claims not to accept the prevailing view. If they have little or no knowledge of the science, it should be clear that they have reasons other than the science for rejecting it.
However, it might perhaps be possible to test this at the margins with, say, issues that aren't at all settled, scientifically, and it would certainly be interesting to see how the usual contrarian types react when persuaded that their pseudo-skeptical heroes had changed their mind.
As Steve Novella also points out, many psychological experiments have shown that we do tend to arrive at conclusions subconsciously, and then look to rationalize those conclusions. And that is, of course, why the process of science is so important.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 2:07 PM
Do you think God wants to?
Do you think God is constrained by something from doing so?
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 1, 2009 2:07 PM
I'm God and my wife is too!
Posted by: Yahzi | December 1, 2009 2:10 PM
Sounds like deflection. "Well, *I* don't hate you, but I'm required to, it's not personal."
Sounds like Calvin. "I am commanded to love my enemies, and I do; but I am commanded to hate God's enemies."
Posted by: Tony P | December 1, 2009 2:13 PM
Great point you make here. I've done some fairly strident videos on YouTube regarding gay rights, atheism, etc.
As a result I get the religious homophobes. Their favorite devices are proclaiming to know the mind of their god, which in this case they do. It's their own bigoted viewpoints. But they don't know the mind of any god.
The other is the use of circular reasoning. Makes my head want to explode when I see that.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:14 PM
Damian @ #60
fair enough...
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Sounds like a new twist on the "I'm not homophobic, but..." bit.
Linguistics Rule #147: Everything before the "but" is bullshit.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 1, 2009 2:19 PM
I actually am a sockpuppet...PZ Myers alter-dumbass-ego.
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
December 1, 2009 2:21 PM
... which is why I double-check everything God says against the Tarot. duh!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 1, 2009 2:25 PM
#66
Regarding "I'm not homophobic, but..."
We also need a name for that phenomenon... whereby a person states a contradictory position as a qualifier, then goes on to provide an explanation for the opposite position, which is almost always their true position.
Much like the phenomenon I talked about in another thread, whereby a person begins a statement with "The fact is", which is almost always an indicator that what is to follow is an opinion.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 2:27 PM
heddle #44 wrote:
Ah, perhaps you were one of the "nice Christians" I was thinking about, then. ;)
Or, perhaps this approach is just more common in Calvinism, or in other versions of theism which seem less concerned with God's ways making sense to men, and more concerned with God being the Ruler Authority. I have a Calvinist friend who is fairly convinced he must be one of the damned, because he thinks God a monster, even though God is, perforce, Perfect. He therefore denies being a Christian (which confuses people, because he believes Christianity to be true.)
Modern, liberal theists are more like to think that they've misinterpreted God, before they think they've misinterpreted Good.
Posted by: blf | December 1, 2009 2:29 PM
I suppose in society's which have/had multiple magic dogs it'd be easier to answer the challenge “is there anything a dog says that you disagree with?”, especially since various dogs yap at each other all the time.
That is… I'm not a mythology expert, but I am under the impression the various gods in the various pantheons tended to disagree with each other, which probably made life interesting for the believers. And perhaps made it easier to answer that question. Just claim god so-and-such says X, which I agree with, even though god such-and-so says Y. So you disagree with so-and-such, but that's Ok, since it's what such-and-so says.
Posted by: madbull
|
December 1, 2009 2:30 PM
yeah PZ... v true !! One of the reasons I became an atheist was that my parent's God din't find the same stuff immoral that mine did. Then I figured out that we were jus miming our own views.
Posted by: Holytape | December 1, 2009 2:36 PM
And what pray tell is wrong with a little sock puppetry? Personally, I'm glad religion works this way. Think how bad religion would be if people took the old testament literally. People would believe that the world was made in six days.... oh wait....People would call for the execution of homosexuals...umm..We couldn't eat bacon!!!!
Posted by: kopd | December 1, 2009 2:38 PM
Reminds me of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Was it their interpretation of God's opinion, to which they conform their own; or their own opinion, around which they base their interpretation of God? I have a hunch about which happens most often, but I'm not sure how to test it.
Posted by: blf | December 1, 2009 2:38 PM
Gak! I got the sockpuppets confused (in @71). I meant:
Posted by: alextangent | December 1, 2009 2:40 PM
The god in my head says (deep booming voice) "Kill her! She is a Statistical Outlier, which is a Perversion!"From a guy with a deep booming voice and a really neat sock drawer.
PS; seen Cuttlefish's poem on this subject? Brilliant!
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 1, 2009 2:41 PM
We also need a name for that phenomenon...
How about, the "No nescient Christian fallacy"?
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 1, 2009 2:43 PM
Damian #28 wrote:
Actually, he just wonders what the results would be. So do I -- particularly for people who are into woo or pseudoscience, and appear to have a rather conflicted, contradictory love-hate relationship with science.
I've known alt med proponents, for example, who will both insist that their views have strong, mainstream scientific support, and then go on to denigrate mainstream scientists as "close-minded" -- in the same sitting. Back and forth, between saying that there is no scientific controversy, to claiming that the controversy is the result of science itself being an inadequate "way of knowing." I think creationists do the same.
So how would they answer regarding the opinion of "the scientific consensus" regarding homeopathy, flood geology, or talking to the dead? Would it be their own view -- or would they want to play the persecuted victim of the Establishment? Would their answer differ depending on whether the person asking the question looked vaguely counter-culture, spiritual, or sympathetic to woo -- or not? I don't know. They talk out of both sides of their mouth so often, maybe it would depend on their mood of the moment.
Posted by: tsg | December 1, 2009 2:53 PM
How about "but heading"?
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Sastra,
Not to take away from other theologies, but in the halls of astonishing belief systems, Calvinism should get it's own gallery and audio tour.
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: Steve_C | December 1, 2009 2:59 PM
It's a false disclaimer.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem | December 1, 2009 3:00 PM
I have often averred that it is not that God created Man in His own image, but rather the opposite.
Every believer creates his/her own God in his or her image - not of what he or she is physically like, but rather with the personality that they believe their god/goddess should be: vengeful or forgiving, cruel or kind, calm or emotional. Yes, that usually means that many a believer's god/goddess reflects their own personalities.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 3:02 PM
And, once again, after years of practice, I still walk into the pie trap of "its" and "it's."
Still learning (though some days, that's not so evident),
Robert
Posted by: Ben
|
December 1, 2009 3:05 PM
This is why I love PZ's posts. This study was covered in a couple of the other blogs that I follow, but just as a synopsis of the study findings. But PJ provides us with the perfect analog in the real world. Sock puppet! A brilliant metaphor!
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 1, 2009 3:05 PM
#69:
"Argument from but"?
Argumentum ex rectum, if you're classicly inclined.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 1, 2009 3:06 PM
Peri_P_Laneta #40
LOL - Those evil proctologists and their slippery fingers...
*looks up at heddle #44*Posted by: Ted Powell | December 1, 2009 3:11 PM
Today's Jesus and Mo is apropos.
Posted by: paradoctor | December 1, 2009 3:17 PM
Ah yes, God as the Monkey in the Mirror.
I love the MRI scan results. If you think about what your neighbor thinks, then your theory-of-mind neurons turn on; but not so when you think about what God thinks.
It explains the puzzling phenomenon of people talking about "my" God. Do they talk about "my" sky? No, because the sky is objective.
It's a natural fallacy. After all, everybody who is correct agrees with _me_. And _my_ God says he doesn't exist!
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 3:18 PM
Could this study have really turned out any other way? It's pretty obvious really, how many people if they believed in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise entity would think that they know better?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
December 1, 2009 3:26 PM
I can't dispute that. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced that I'm not a sockpuppet.
Posted by: Endor | December 1, 2009 3:26 PM
"if I were God I would save everyone. I don't know why he doesn't."
Of course you know why he doesn't. he'd have to do that whole existing thing first, before he could "save" anyone. That's a high huddle to get over - that whole doesn't-actually-exist thing.
Posted by: llewelly | December 1, 2009 3:28 PM
Damian | December 1, 2009 1:05 PM:
True, but God is quite unlike those earthly authorities. First, everyone accepts that ordinary humans are fallible. Very few theists are willing to consider that God may be fallible. Despite Einstein being by far the most respected name in science, many people know he was wrong about quantum mechanics. God is the authority who can never be questioned.
Second, those earthly authorities are accessible to others, in a way that God is not. If you want to know the opinions of Einstein, Jim Hansen, or Charles Darwin, their writings are available in libraries and on line. A clear connection between those writings and those people can be made. But the writings of God are numerous, of dodgy origin, widely contradicted, and widely contested. With the exception of a few documents, nearly scholars of Thomas Jefferson agree on which documents were written by him, and often on what context they were written in. But among theologians, there is probably no work longer than a few dozen words, which even half of theologians agree to be the word of God.
Third, people who question another's interpretation of God, or source of revelations about God, are often portrayed as the worst sort of people. Death threats have been sent in response to billboards stating that those who do not believe in God are not alone. Dennett is widely hated because he wrote a book arguing that it should be okay to question religion. If PZ says X about evolution, nearly everyone accepts that it is ok for John Wilkins to argue that PZ is wrong. But in most public discourse, it is not ok to suggest that someone's interpretation of God's word may be wrong or unreliable.
Steven Novella is right to point out that the same problem exists with other authorities. But with other authorities, the problem has less impact; it is limited by the mortality and reality of those authorities.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 1, 2009 3:31 PM
Actually, Ed Yong came up with the sockpuppet metaphor.
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 1, 2009 3:34 PM
New Product:
Introducing Lego's Build-Your-Own-God(TM) belief kit. Batteries and brains, not included.
Posted by: Crux Australis | December 1, 2009 3:35 PM
Sweet. I have on my classroom wall (a physics class in a Catholic high school), a poster that says:
WWUD
Think for yourself
Cogita tute
I have not been asked to remove it after a year of displaying it.
Posted by: Peptron | December 1, 2009 3:43 PM
@Celtic_Evoluion #69
We also need a name for that phenomenon... whereby a person states a contradictory position as a qualifier, then goes on to provide an explanation for the opposite position, which is almost always their true position.
I think this is what is called "reaction formation".
They have it all... reaction formation, displacement, projection, etc...
Posted by: Peptron | December 1, 2009 3:47 PM
@Peptron #96
You fail at blockquotes...
My actual answer is:
"I think this is what is called "reaction formation".
They have it all... reaction formation, displacement, projection, etc..."
The rest is Celtic_Evolution's quote.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | December 1, 2009 4:04 PM
@llewelly: I believe you miss the point of the comparison with earthly authorities. Unless they know, or have good reason to assume, otherwise, people are (it is suggested) inclined to believe that Einstein etc agreed/agrees/would agree with them, because they believe themselves to be right and authorities are supposed to be right too.
I doubt, incidentally, that this result will bother most theists who hear of it. They'll say "of course God agrees with me, I hold those opinions because they're God's!"
Posted by: Medieval Guy | December 1, 2009 4:08 PM
There's only one possible explanation.
Polytheism.
On a truly vast scale.
Posted by: JiminKy | December 1, 2009 4:10 PM
Friends, it's worse than we dared dream. Not only is God a sockpuppet, he's actually Elmo.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | December 1, 2009 4:15 PM
That one's easy. There is very strong evidence that eggs were around looooong before chickens.There. Conundrum resolved.
Posted by: heddle | December 1, 2009 4:24 PM
Desert Son OM #80
You got that right.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Heddle is calvinist as far as i remember, his god is a strange separate entity that does what it pleases. If you see an escaped sock puppet, do NOT approach it....definitely don't feed it after midnight.
I wouldn't expect people to think real world things shared their beliefs (like organisations and famous people) too much because they are easily verified and they will also be influencing your own beliefs... and organisations have a lot more weight than individuals.
The quality of the religious sockpuppets on this blog can now give you some idea of the quality of their owner's god.
They should be grateful however, as science has discovered God. Now we can get onto more interesting questions...
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
December 1, 2009 4:32 PM
Beware; that way lies apostasy! Taken far enough it should become obvious to most believers that their god is being remade in exactly this way, at which point the Derkins Epiphany--named after Watterson's character, of course--is unavoidable: "and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony!"
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 1, 2009 4:37 PM
I wonder how the ticketing would work for that.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Well, since there is a chicken in the egg...
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Good question. I'm guessing only a certain group of visitors to the museum, determined arbitrarily and in a way utterly inscrutable to the patrons themselves, would be allowed to see the exhibit. Other patrons of the museum would be told it was the greatest exhibit ever, but be consigned to gift shop hell for eternity (or the length of their visit, whichever came first).
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: AdamK
|
December 1, 2009 4:46 PM
God's butthole is suspiciously roomy.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Several times I've had discussion with people, usually by not always fundamentalists of some stripe, who tell me what God says. Without exception, when asked "how do you know what God says?" I get the response "God talks to me."
If people say the voices in their heads are telling them to do things then we wonder about their sanity. If people say that God is telling them to do things then most often they're considered very pious.
I'm reminded of the old joke: "You're all jealous because the voices only talk to me."
Posted by: tokenadult | December 1, 2009 4:53 PM
"I sometimes ask believers 'Is there any issue on which you disagree with God?' They usually find the question incredible, but it would be a perfectly reasonable question to ask if God really was some other person, an authority figure whom they try to understand and obey."
This is a good question. I'll have to try this out a lot with my friends.
Posted by: Phil Jones | December 1, 2009 5:01 PM
Speaking of "the loser whose opinions are indefensible, so he invents an army of aliases to agree with him"...I can't help bu envision Al Gore's hand up the posterior of this fellow and his cohorts
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/cru-chief-phil-jones-asked-to-step-down/
Posted by: kopd | December 1, 2009 5:07 PM
'Tis Himself:
You remind me of a quote from Sam Harris when he said "if someone told us that God spoke to them through a toaster, we would conclude that this person is insane. I fail to see how the presence or absence of the toaster makes a difference."
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 5:15 PM
Yes. One giant game of "Let's Pretend". Except they've convinced themselves that it's not pretend.
Posted by: Peter Mc | December 1, 2009 5:17 PM
"to have your arm up a god's butt?"
PZ, you have just invented Godfisting.
Respect.
Posted by: Esve | December 1, 2009 5:17 PM
Well, of course every person believes in a different 'god', even as far as belonging to the same religion- there are Christians who hate gays and Christians who don't, there are those who think their god commands them to reject evolution and those who don't. This discontinuity is part of the reason why I don't believe in the concept of 'organized' religion, much less in any god.
Posted by: kopd | December 1, 2009 5:17 PM
Phil:
The comments on that blog post are... interesting.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 5:22 PM
-Yes. One giant game of "Let's Pretend". Except they've convinced themselves that it's not pretend.-
Which makes me wonder: When you are pretending that it isn't pretend....is it still pretending?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 5:26 PM
Yes. The worst kind of pretending. I think the clinical term for it is "delusional".
Posted by: Blind Squirrel | December 1, 2009 5:35 PM
I thought god was an American.
BS
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 1, 2009 5:37 PM
AdamK #108,
TMI !!!
Good point, and it's one that I think has been long felt to be reasonably true even if it hadn't been confirmed by science.Richard Eis #103,
Posted by: Jeff R.
|
December 1, 2009 5:45 PM
Related article in the Sydney Morning Herald here, written by their Science editor. Hehehe.
Sample:
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 1, 2009 5:48 PM
"Phil Jones",
I can't help envisaging the hand of Myron Ebill, well-known shill for the fossil fuel industries, up your arse. The statement by UEA is here. Jones has done the right thing by stepping down at least temporarily, so the CRU can get on with its work, so far as denialist harassment and criminal activity will allow.
Posted by: Katherine | December 1, 2009 5:57 PM
So religious people are actually LESS moral than atheists/agnostics, because they don't have to think about their decisions as they think everything they do is good... Best evidence I've seen yet for abolishing all religions, and I'm not an atheist either.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
December 1, 2009 5:58 PM
That was one of the worst attempts at a thread hijacking I've ever seen. Could you be any more clumsy about it, verbal oaf? I can only imagine what you must be like in RL.
Phil at school:
Teacher: Four plus three doesn't equal six, Phil. Try again."
Phil: "You know what else doesn't add up? The evidence for so-called climate change."
Phil at work:
Boss: "Phil, have you filled out that report yet?"
Phil: "Speaking of reports, the IPCC's report on climate change is full of shoddy science."
Phil on a date:
Date: "Oh, Phil, I've had such a good time with you tonight, and I'm glad we're having coffee. Do you mind if I slip off this coat? I'm feeling a little 'warm'..."
Phil: "You know what's not warming up? The Earth, and I'll send you a link to this blog explaining why..."
Isn't there a NYC firefighter you could be screaming about thermite at?
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 1, 2009 6:07 PM
... getting back to the subject at hand, I was particularly amused by Ed's note:
(/File under 'Bears, shitting in woods'.)
Posted by: 01jack
|
December 1, 2009 6:12 PM
Robert,
"Pie trap"?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 1, 2009 6:12 PM
Hmmm, so, would that be called Godtse?
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 1, 2009 6:23 PM
o1jack,
I was thinking of the classic comedy routine of the meringue-pie-in-the-face, done up Warner Brothers cartoon style on some sort of elaborate spring-action, tripwire-activated accordion arm mechanism rigged carefully by a Canis latrans lying in wait for a Geococcyx californianus.
As a metaphor for a grammatical error. Perhaps I chose poorly.
However, in the spirit of the pie-in-the-face, may I recommend a brief treatise on jokes, including those involving edible missiles?
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 1, 2009 6:33 PM
the reason you're confused is because you seem to assume polytheists treat their gods the same way monotheists do.for most of the ancient polytheists, gods were not arbiters of morality. they were characters in stories used to explain the natural world, and as such capricious beings that needed appeasement to prevent disaster. morality didn't figure into it, most of the time.
as such, "doing gods will" only extended as far as giving the right sacrifices at the right time, to not piss them off.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | December 1, 2009 6:50 PM
The next bus campaign:
"Is your arm a sockpuppet up god's butt?
Posted by: Qwerty
|
December 1, 2009 7:25 PM
I was looking at a book at my mother's house about the history and life of Jesus and I was struck by the Korean image of Jesus which looked like a... Korean.
And it's not surprising that most Northern Europeans have a mental and/or actual picture of Jesus as a blue-eyed blond.
Yes, I agree, Jesus is a sockpuppet.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 7:35 PM
Sastra,
This was one of the big reasons I left Xianity. Looking at the world and what I viewed as good and bad deeds, and comparing that to the bible led me to the conclusion that the bible couldn't possibly be the best advice on morality. It didn't take me long after that to abandon both the bible and the religion that spawned it. From the dark Cave of Christianity it was a brief journey through the Meadows and Mountains of World Religions to end at the beautiful Valley of Atheism. In the Valley I learned about secular morality and have been working on adjusting my beliefs about morality and ethics ever since. It's a day to day process and there's always some new ethical or moral question I've never considered. It's nice to know that my morals come from a solid foundation of secular ethics rather that an asshole in the sky.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | December 1, 2009 8:16 PM
Is anybody else having trouble downloading the original article by Nicholas Epley, et al.? I've tried the provided DOI, I've tried ISI Web of Science, and I've visited the PNAS website. Could somebody here be so kind as to provide a working URL?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 1, 2009 9:15 PM
Re: hearing or imitating the Voice Of God, here is part of a comment I left at Not Exactly Rocket Science:
Apparently my bicameral mind broke down, recognized itself amid the distractions, observed a wider world around itself, found a comfortable balance and went nova. Except for a bit o' stumble back in my youth I've always dealt with the "other" voice in the same fashion as I've dealt with all the others. I talk back. And I argue.
My voice and I are getting along well these days although I've been telling myself that I'm showing signs of wear and stubbornness. P'shaw, that's only lies.
Thanks for the heads up on this experiment, PZ. I'm arguing with myself whether the early results are More Funny or Less Revealing.
Posted by: Dust | December 1, 2009 10:21 PM
heddle said:
Save them from what?...
Posted by: Suck Poppet
|
December 1, 2009 10:40 PM
@heddle #44
Simple.
Where would the profit come from if everyone was automatically "saved" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
No incentive to tithe.
Televangelists would be put out of business.
Crazy talk ...
Posted by: Snoof | December 1, 2009 11:13 PM
I'd just like to point out that this is hardly news. I've known for _years_ that my god is a sockpuppet.
All hail Banjo the Clown!
Posted by: Eternal Thread | December 1, 2009 11:27 PM
I am NOT a sockpuppet...am I?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGDzY2jDqSM
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 2:10 AM
#49 and 53
Since Satan posts more frequently, I believe that God is Satan's sockpuppet. Prove me wrong God with your almighty identifying abilities! lol
Posted by: God | December 2, 2009 2:45 AM
Satan's been in a chatty and rebellious mood. I think He needs sedatives.
Æther binge, indeed!
Your blasphemy is so noted.
Posted by: Jesus' long lost brother | December 2, 2009 4:15 AM
Check out the most recent Jesus&Mo from Dec, 1st:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
I'm sure God does want a beer.
Posted by: DaveH (of Embra toon) | December 2, 2009 4:51 AM
@ j.t.delaney
New Scientist article links to PNAS, but notes the paper is "in press" at the moment. Have to wait a while.
Posted by: Ed Yong | December 2, 2009 6:00 AM
I tried explaining this at my blog - PNAS lifts embargoes on papers on Monday but they gradually publish the papers over the course of the week. Which is irritating because there are often gaps of several days when the story's out there but the paper isn't.
Epley tells me he was told his paper would be online on Monday, but that clearly hasn't happened. Just be patient - it'll come. I'm looking at it on my desktop now, so I can guarantee that it exists!
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 2, 2009 7:54 AM
-I'm looking at it on my desktop now, so I can guarantee that it exists! -
pfft, like a pharyngulite would believe that. What do you take us for? Does the paper conform to your beliefs too?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 2, 2009 1:38 PM
Does that make the baby jebus his assclown?
Posted by: killyosaur | December 2, 2009 3:30 PM
Nobody? in 145+ comments nobody mentioned sinfest?
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3359
God and his sockpuppets.
Posted by: reverted | December 2, 2009 8:46 PM
George Bernard Shaw summed this up long ago:
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 2, 2009 11:21 PM
Kel, OM #89
was answered by paradoctor #88:
Clearly it could have been otherwise, and I'd guess that for some people it is. Those able to imagine God's opinions as diverging from their own (e.g. Heddle #44) presumably need to use a theory-of-mind tag to keep track of them, while those who only pretend to believe in a tyrant god need only pull them out fresh and steaming when required. That would be the vast majority of christians.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 11:28 PM
now I want someone to repeat that study with the following groups: 1)Calvinists 2)atheists 3)people from non-Abrahamic religions 4)non-calvinist Christians 5)religious Jewsthey'd be asked questions about what they'd imagine the Abrahamic god would consider good or not, and then map the results.
I suspect everyone except the non-calvinist christians (and possibly the jews) would use theory-of-mind; but i'd love to see that study.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 2, 2009 11:31 PM
@148,
What makes you sure that they weren't "true" believers? Is that in the paper?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 2, 2009 11:33 PM
erm... actually... do we use theory-of-mind for fictional but well-defined characters*? because that should be visible in the results too, if there's a difference to imagining what a real person would do, as opposed to imagining what a well-defined fictional character would do...
*ones that aren't supposed to function as a Mary Sue, since for that we'd use the same brain-parts we use to figure out our own motivations, right?
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 2, 2009 11:40 PM
@151,
Yes.
How else could you work out what different characters were thinking about each other?
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 3, 2009 1:12 AM
God's so ineffable, see, that most people who claim to believe just couldn't actually be effed constructing a 'well-defined' character. Another prediction: readers of Milton would probably have a much better defined god-concept than anyone only 'informed' by the bible and church-babble.
DaveH: There've been discussions here before about whether rationalist/skeptics should use the word 'believe' (and cognates) at all. I'm doing my bit to take the word back from the faith-heads, whose 'belief' is based on nothing but their daydreams, nightmares and wish to conform.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 3, 2009 1:17 AM
*shrug*I figured I'd rather ask to make sure, rather than assume something I don't know.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 3, 2009 2:02 AM
John,
That sounds like a philosophical nightmare. But, more importantly, what do the psychologists say?
Jadehawk, Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude, merely concise.