I applaud everyone on keeping this thread civilised and well written. And after reading it all, I will add my 10c worth (It has been upgraded from my previous 2c worth after someone pointed out that I tend to write far more than 2c calls for).
For the believers of the afterlife, there is no question about following the rules that promises entrance into this paradise. As there would be no question for anyone who truly believed their behaviour would pay off in a desired way. There is also no point in seeking inconsistencies within the rules, or even questioning the logic of it, as long as the people they love, and they themselves, are able to live happily and healthily. Living a life without truly questioning the path that makes them happy, is the path of least resistance, and is the path that almost all people attempt to get to.
The non-believers of the afterlife do not have the peace of mind that their death is merely a stepping stone to greater things. Therefore to live as happily and freely on this Earth is of the utmost importance. Knowledge is something that is revered, and gives people the perception of control of an otherwise unpredictable world. They question the logic and inconsistencies within the believers rule-set as part of their quest for knowledge and to appease their desire for truth. But no matter how much they question or point out plausible discrepencies, a real believer will never truly engage in the questioning of it. If life is good, and you truly believe there is a bonus at the end if you follow the rules, would you? It's a no-brainer. We don't question life when it works and we are happy, only when it doesn't.
So it appears to me, the major difference between believers and non-believers, is if you were born into circumstances that either convinced you or didn't convince you that the afterlife exists. But what the non-believers find hard to grasp, is why the believers continue to believe so strongly in the afterlife, when they feel so much evidence against it exists. And this is what I will attempt to explain.
The human brain has limits, for example we are unable to quantify large numbers. Try picturing 5 trillion in your head. It can't be done, we have to have faith that it exists beyond our reasoning ability. Humans can not also comprehend two contradicting and conflicting ideas. It causes what is known as cognitive dissonance. An uncomfortable feeling within us that we have a huge motivational drive to reduce. There are two ways to reduce this feeling, and both ways result in the dismissal of one of the conflicting ideas. One way, is to change what we believe to be the truth. We alter our beliefs, attitudes and behaviours and adopt the new information as fact. However, humans are inherently lazy, and like I mentioned before generally always seek the path of least resistance. To change your belief system of something so big as the whole concept of life, is incredibly hard to do. It's emotionally and intellectually draining and in all respects an undesirable activity. The second way, is to try and rationalise and justify the existing beliefs you have. Putting emphasis on those justifications, and reducing the importance of contradicting statements. This particular reaction is called confirmation bias, and is the most typical response when it comes to belief altering circumstances.
Now to bring my point home. I will give you an example of both cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias. There will be two types of people that will read my post. One type will finish reading it feeling satisfied, somewhat enlightened and may even re-read points that seem particularly significant and interesting. These people have read something that not only agrees with their beliefs, but may even go one step further by confirming them. At this point in time, any questions that may disagree with what I wrote, are insignificant. This is an example of confirmation bias.
The other type of people reading this post, will temporarily agree with the validity of certain points I make, but it will leave them feeling a little bit wrong. They will internally seek out ways to discredit the points they feel are debatable, and will, in effect conveniently forget the rest. This is an example of cognitive dissonance, and the attempt to reduce it.
I applaud everyone on keeping this thread civilised and well written. And after reading it all, I will add my 10c worth (It has been upgraded from my previous 2c worth after someone pointed out that I tend to write far more than 2c calls for).
For the believers of the afterlife, there is no question about following the rules that promises entrance into this paradise. As there would be no question for anyone who truly believed their behaviour would pay off in a desired way. There is also no point in seeking inconsistencies within the rules, or even questioning the logic of it, as long as the people they love, and they themselves, are able to live happily and healthily. Living a life without truly questioning the path that makes them happy, is the path of least resistance, and is the path that almost all people attempt to get to.
The non-believers of the afterlife do not have the peace of mind that their death is merely a stepping stone to greater things. Therefore to live as happily and freely on this Earth is of the utmost importance. Knowledge is something that is revered, and gives people the perception of control of an otherwise unpredictable world. They question the logic and inconsistencies within the believers rule-set as part of their quest for knowledge and to appease their desire for truth. But no matter how much they question or point out plausible discrepencies, a real believer will never truly engage in the questioning of it. If life is good, and you truly believe there is a bonus at the end if you follow the rules, would you? It's a no-brainer. We don't question life when it works and we are happy, only when it doesn't.
So it appears to me, the major difference between believers and non-believers, is if you were born into circumstances that either convinced you or didn't convince you that the afterlife exists. But what the non-believers find hard to grasp, is why the believers continue to believe so strongly in the afterlife, when they feel so much evidence against it exists. And this is what I will attempt to explain.
The human brain has limits, for example we are unable to quantify large numbers. Try picturing 5 trillion in your head. It can't be done, we have to have faith that it exists beyond our reasoning ability. Humans can not also comprehend two contradicting and conflicting ideas. It causes what is known as cognitive dissonance. An uncomfortable feeling within us that we have a huge motivational drive to reduce. There are two ways to reduce this feeling, and both ways result in the dismissal of one of the conflicting ideas. One way, is to change what we believe to be the truth. We alter our beliefs, attitudes and behaviours and adopt the new information as fact. However, humans are inherently lazy, and like I mentioned before generally always seek the path of least resistance. To change your belief system of something so big as the whole concept of life, is incredibly hard to do. It's emotionally and intellectually draining and in all respects an undesirable activity. The second way, is to try and rationalise and justify the existing beliefs you have. Putting emphasis on those justifications, and reducing the importance of contradicting statements. This particular reaction is called confirmation bias, and is the most typical response when it comes to belief altering circumstances.
Now to bring my point home. I will give you an example of both cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias. There will be two types of people that will read my post. One type will finish reading it feeling satisfied, somewhat enlightened and may even re-read points that seem particularly significant and interesting. These people have read something that not only agrees with their beliefs, but may even go one step further by confirming them. At this point in time, any questions that may disagree with what I wrote, are insignificant. This is an example of confirmation bias.
The other type of people reading this post, will temporarily agree with the validity of certain points I make, but it will leave them feeling a little bit wrong. They will internally seek out ways to discredit the points they feel are debatable, and will, in effect conveniently forget the rest. This is an example of cognitive dissonance, and the attempt to reduce it.