Religious Discussion

[Mr Master]

Pretty much. To put it into human aspects: How do you get somewhere that's too far/takes too long to walk to? You adapt. You learn how to ride a bike or drive a car or find some other means to get there. That's learned behavior. It's an adaptation just like technology in and of itself is an adaptation for better survival. It can't be apart of your DNA and therefore isn't a survival trait. Just like religion. The pattern of spots on a Leopard are a survival trait- it allows them to be more attractive to potential mating partners and makes them harder to see at night.​

And in this context, the ability to have belief appears to be genetic, if brain-area-function studies tell us what we think they do, but what we turn that belief toward is entirely an adaptation. Religion is not genetic, but the ability to have a religious experience might be, if we're interpreting the research right.

Belief is different. Some people will never believe in one thing but will believe in another. That's choice. And the bold print is a contradiction. An experience isn't genetic. You can't experience one thing and have someone else experience it just because they are your child. Or a relative. Or be apart of the same species.​

Well, yes, belief itself. I'm talking about the brain structures that most of us have that seem to be able to trigger the "religious belief" phenomenon that all the kids are talking about these days. The physiological capability for the kind of brain-altering prayer that Seraph's link above and other research has indicated. Those brain structures would be genetic. What we use to trigger them, that is the adaptation. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Well, yes, belief itself. I'm talking about the brain structures that most of us have that seem to be able to trigger the "religious belief" phenomenon that all the kids are talking about these days. The physiological capability for the kind of brain-altering prayer that Seraph's link above and other research has indicated. Those brain structures would be genetic. What we use to trigger them, that is the adaptation. That's all I'm saying.

"Religious Belief" isn't a phenomenon. It developed as a means to explain the unknown and to civilize people under a strict edict. To make people think there's a higher power was to make them think about the things they were doing. It formed society and structure that wouldn't have existed if people didn't question how things came into being. With science, however, it's starting to show that so little things can be "unexplained" and can't be based off of religious belief. "Why is that there?" "Cause God put it there." "No, it was here because...etc."

I haven't looked at the link. And brain-altering doesn't sound like a correct term. More like brain-washing.​

 

[Mr Master]

I was talking about it earlier in the thread. The experience that people describe as religious ecstasy, Zen satori, the mental click that makes brains feel like they're touching the divine. That's the result of brain chemistry and particular neurological sensory structures. There's a part of our brain that is designed for that experience. But what does it mean? What's its purpose? Most of us, if not all of us, can possibly activate that part of our brains, but how and why? Nobody can say for sure.

Which isn't to say many people don't try. THAT is the brainwashing application. And you're right, that comes in at the adaptation stage. But I'm speaking on the neurotransmitter and sensory/perceptive level. The physical ability to potentially have that experience. I thought I'd explained it before, but I hope I've explained it now.

If you don't believe such a neurological event can take place, that's probably more of an issue between you and the neurological researchers. I believe the brain works like that, it explains why people throughout history have had these experiences and interpreted them as they did. But that's me; I don't expect you to buy it, necessarily.

EDIT: In other words, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm talking about something different than you thought I was talking about.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Don't expect me to read the whole thread when I can't concentrate on multiple things due to exhaustion! >8U

You do realize that half the time they are using "drugs" in order to obtain such "higher" states of being, right? It's not all about meditation. when you say brain-altering it's not possible. You can't alter your brain and the pathways. They are set into place- like your bone structure- you can't change it, but you can change the area surrounding it. The way you think can be altered, just like how you perceive things, the way you experience things can be altered. But the pathways and transmitters THEMSELVES, can't be altered. It's not one of those "I wanna have superpowers-- PRESTO!" things. Something has to occur like radiation and cancer to alter those things- hence why brain diseases are so destructive. Reaching higher states of consciousness are more like illusions- you let drop all the immediate distractions until there is- essentially- only you. It isn't divinity- it's self-exploration and the way to go about it can be "divine" because few people can reach such a state of awareness. But it isn't "religious experience" exactly. It's a practice that not everyone can withstand and manage, which is one of the reasons why it's called "a higher state of being," it's being able to delve so far into your sub-conscious that you only PERCEIVE you are touching upon the divine. It doesn't make it necessarily true. It depends on your beliefs- especially religious ones.

EDIT: Then, if you are talking about something totally different, you can just read this for brain stimuli and I could be totally off-base with what I just said. But I still stick by it cause I'm bad ass. ​

 

[Mr Master]

Again, I think we're in agreement.

When speaking of the part of the brain that "touches the divine," I'm speaking about the sensation, not about actually touching God. It just feels like that, regardless of what actually happens. And yes, many people use chemicals to access that mental state, but others can do that through meditation or prayer, whatever it takes to trigger it. It seems like whatever is involved in the religious experience seems to provide the best non-drug access to this state, which is why it has become most associated with religion (and why some folks use drugs religiously, I would expect).

The changing aspect they're talking about in Seraph's article, again, it's from a Catholic "news" organization. I don't know that they can prove that prayer (or this mental state I am constantly referencing) actually changes axons and dendrites and neurons; that seems a bit much. But personality is a process, large parts of it are not hard-wired into the brain, and besides, brain activity can create changes in the body, which in turn can affect the mind, as well, so long-run, there's some theoretical discussion that can happen there. I know if I had an experience that "touched the divine," I might come away from it altered, maybe not in the structure of my cells but certainly in the personality process that courses through them. If that's what they're talking about, an experience that alters the program, not the hardware, then yes, I can see it. But if they're saying prayer physically changes the structure of the brain... well, I'd demand more research.

 

[Trygon]

Blue Moon broke the link in my last post, so here it is again. I'll catch up on the thread fully when I get home. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104310443</a><!-- m -->

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

MM, we are in agreement. And as I said, you can't change the structure of your brain- but you can change different things. If we are gonna go with a technology aspect then your brain is hardware and your personality is software- the software can be altered but not the hardware.​

 

[Grumm]

But that's not a good analogy, Hahvoc. After all, you can add or subtract components from the hardware.

And I have heard of, and seen the research for such before; I'm trying like crazy to find it again so I can throw up some links on here. Research has shown that by focusing on certain parts of the brain, you can change, in small ways, the structure of it. Not a major change, but a small one.

Moving back a bit though, a predilection for certain actions and behaviors can be passed down genetically. Several years back I read an article in (american scientist, I think was the magazine) on crows; specifically, how crows are as intelligent as the great apes. One thing they found was that a crow, separated at birth, would imitate some of the parents' actions. Also, yet us not forget instinct. Even a child who has never seen a tiger, or anything even remotely similar to one, would be terrified if one approached it. Why? If there is no past experience when dealing with one, why the terror?

Because it's an ingrained reaction, a genetic predisposition to acting in a certain way.

Therefor, actions can be bred into a species. And remember, I never said belief itself was genetic, merely the predisposition for it.


Now, off that subject, I noticed where you said belief is a choice; not to be a jerk, but you're dead wrong on that score. Belief or lack of it in something is no more a choice than what hair color you're born with. No one who truly believes or disbelieves just wakes up one day and says "Okay, this is what I'm going to believe in now". You believe something because it feels 'right' to you, not because of conscious effort. I'd love to believe that there really was someone up there looking out for me, but after looking at the evidence, after a long bout of soul-searching, I found that I no longer could.

You make it sound like belief/disbelief is much like saying "Hmm, McDonalds or Burger King?".

 

[Mr Master]

It's a perfectly fine analogy for the limited purposes she's trying to express. It's you who's trying to carry it forward, but that doesn't invalidate her point. That said, I do think it's possible to alter the structure of the brain, because forming new thoughts and making new connections does that all the time (neuron density, neural plasticity, etc.), and yes, neurons aren't electronics, they're vaguely more like muscles, so working different areas makes those areas more responsive. And there's a hell of a lot we don't understand about the brain and its interaction with the rest of the body and the consciousness. The universe is always more complex than we think it is. But for the kind of thing Hahvy was talking about, the analogy served her point.

You've obviously never done much research into how people fall out of belief or how people like priests handle their devotion. Real belief and devotion takes effort, because it's natural to question it, as you did, as we all have. You have to choose to follow whatever holy word you subscribe to, despite doubts and seeming contradictions. She's not getting into the mechanics of it because she's just talking about how it's not ingrained; the specifics of how one believes is a different subject than what Hahvy was addressing. It's not an easy choice, sometimes it's not something we're given as a choice (I myself was raised Presbyterian, and really didn't have a choice in how I was brought up). And some folks never question what they're raised with. But the fact that someone CAN question it, and stop believing what they've always been taught, or learn about something and start believing it, that makes it a choice, ultimately. Again, not easy, not simple, but variable. Judging the whole species by your own personal example is so limited a statistical sample as to be entirely useless. You're good as an example, not a truism.

You have a point that some behaviors appear to be genetically motivated, largely because we don't really understand very well how genetics and personality interact. But I think you're thinking of it as more specific than it actually is. We don't have "Tiger Bad!" encoded in our genes, but we possibly do have something like "sharp teeth and claws, muscular look, and that intense stare like it wants to eat me probably means it wants to eat me" encoded in there somewhere. However, babies clearly don't react that way. A baby will treat just about any new beastie the same way, until it learns one way or another. Where's the genetic encoding there? Or is there something else at work?

Animal genetics and behavior I tend to see is more closely linked, whereas the human animal has demonstrated millions of times over that we can deny the imperatives of our genetics, that genetic codes might influence but cannot control us like they control other creatures.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Sorry, but it is a choice to believe in something. If someone lets you down constantly and always tell you to keep believing in them, are you going to? Highly doubtful. If you have hope for something, that's where belief can be put into play. You hope someone is up there watching over you and want to believe in it. But if you lose that hope, that faith, you can't believe in it anymore. And no, Mcdonalds/Burger King is a wicked stupid analogy and wasn't what I was going for at all. You believe in something because you have enough evidence, enough reason to do so. If you don't have those reasons anymore, you won't believe in something.

And my analogy previously was perfectly sound. And if you take away bits and pieces of hardware, more than likely it won't work right and that's how we get crazy people. :3 unless it's like, abnormalities like a tumor, then things will go back to normal.

This is how other religions are made. You don't believe in one religion because another suits what you think is right. Let me emphasize that. What you THINK is right in the world based on information you've been given. I don't believe there is really a God. I never have, even when given information that "hey, maybe there is one," when I was child. Too much reasons out there make me believe there cannot be one. But that's my personal preference. You can't necessarily change a belief because you let it be ingrained into your system.

Now I will quote Dogma:

Rufus:He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.​

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

. Even a child who has never seen a tiger, or anything even remotely similar to one, would be terrified if one approached it. Why? If there is no past experience when dealing with one, why the terror?

Oh, and to quote you because this was too much to not pass up.

Human beings are wicked stupid beings when they are born. They do not have survival instincts like other animals. They do not learn like other animals learn. This link is to show how children who are not properly socialized will not learn nor adapt to the environment they are put into. Humans learn by doing and being surrounded by people. We are weak beings- despite us being at the "top" of the food chain. If people are put into a predator enriched environment with nothing to work with- more than likely, they will die. Why? Humans are really prey. But not in all cases. Hence why adaptation is such an important trait that human beings have once they reach a certain level of brain activity. Why are we at the top? Because of brain size. The larger the brain- usually- the more you can learn.​

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/mskinner/Sociology/Socialization/feral_children.htm

Oh, and children are especially susceptible to stupid things like "I wanna pet the kitty!" Because they don't know any better. They only know something is dangerous when they are told they are dangerous to touch. Like when a child learns that jumping off the porch will not make them fly and they get hurt and learn not to do it again. Humans are only smart because of their capacity to learn and expand that knowledge.​

 

[Kawamura]

. Even a child who has never seen a tiger, or anything even remotely similar to one, would be terrified if one approached it. Why? If there is no past experience when dealing with one, why the terror?

Oh, and to quote you because this was too much to not pass up.

Human beings are wicked stupid beings when they are born. They do not have survival instincts like other animals. They do not learn like other animals learn. This link is to show how children who are not properly socialized will not learn nor adapt to the environment they are put into. Humans learn by doing and being surrounded by people. We are weak beings- despite us being at the "top" of the food chain. If people are put into a predator enriched environment with nothing to work with- more than likely, they will die. Why? Humans are really prey. But not in all cases. Hence why adaptation is such an important trait that human beings have once they reach a certain level of brain activity. Why are we at the top? Because of brain size. The larger the brain- usually- the more you can learn.​

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/mskinner/Sociology/Socialization/feral_children.htm

Oh, and children are especially susceptible to stupid things like "I wanna pet the kitty!" Because they don't know any better. They only know something is dangerous when they are told they are dangerous to touch. Like when a child learns that jumping off the porch will not make them fly and they get hurt and learn not to do it again. Humans are only smart because of their capacity to learn and expand that knowledge.​

Children don't have survival instincts? You mean, like, not touching hot things?

Humans have a lot of instincts. And why should you determine how good social animals are at surviving by removing them them from the group they rely on? That's not fair. Other animals learn from example.

 

[Mr Master]

. Even a child who has never seen a tiger, or anything even remotely similar to one, would be terrified if one approached it. Why? If there is no past experience when dealing with one, why the terror?

Oh, and to quote you because this was too much to not pass up.

Human beings are wicked stupid beings when they are born. They do not have survival instincts like other animals. They do not learn like other animals learn. This link is to show how children who are not properly socialized will not learn nor adapt to the environment they are put into. Humans learn by doing and being surrounded by people. We are weak beings- despite us being at the "top" of the food chain. If people are put into a predator enriched environment with nothing to work with- more than likely, they will die. Why? Humans are really prey. But not in all cases. Hence why adaptation is such an important trait that human beings have once they reach a certain level of brain activity. Why are we at the top? Because of brain size. The larger the brain- usually- the more you can learn.​

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/mskinner/Sociology/Socialization/feral_children.htm

Oh, and children are especially susceptible to stupid things like "I wanna pet the kitty!" Because they don't know any better. They only know something is dangerous when they are told they are dangerous to touch. Like when a child learns that jumping off the porch will not make them fly and they get hurt and learn not to do it again. Humans are only smart because of their capacity to learn and expand that knowledge.​

Children don't have survival instincts? You mean, like, not touching hot things?

Humans have a lot of instincts. And why should you determine how good social animals are at surviving by removing them them from the group they rely on? That's not fair. Other animals learn from example.

I believe yes, she means like not touching hot things, which there are numerous examples of that every day. And the feral children link I think was just to refute the point of how much instincts humans have. I think we have lots of instinctual tendencies that express in sometimes odd ways, but there's no instinct we can't unlearn, so they're not as strong in us as others. And you're right, we learn many things by example, but that's not what Grumm was talking about, and what Grumm was talking about is what Hahvy was addressing.

That's all. I don't think she's objecting to the level you're speaking to.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

. Even a child who has never seen a tiger, or anything even remotely similar to one, would be terrified if one approached it. Why? If there is no past experience when dealing with one, why the terror?

Oh, and to quote you because this was too much to not pass up.

Human beings are wicked stupid beings when they are born. They do not have survival instincts like other animals. They do not learn like other animals learn. This link is to show how children who are not properly socialized will not learn nor adapt to the environment they are put into. Humans learn by doing and being surrounded by people. We are weak beings- despite us being at the "top" of the food chain. If people are put into a predator enriched environment with nothing to work with- more than likely, they will die. Why? Humans are really prey. But not in all cases. Hence why adaptation is such an important trait that human beings have once they reach a certain level of brain activity. Why are we at the top? Because of brain size. The larger the brain- usually- the more you can learn.​

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/mskinner/Sociology/Socialization/feral_children.htm

Oh, and children are especially susceptible to stupid things like "I wanna pet the kitty!" Because they don't know any better. They only know something is dangerous when they are told they are dangerous to touch. Like when a child learns that jumping off the porch will not make them fly and they get hurt and learn not to do it again. Humans are only smart because of their capacity to learn and expand that knowledge.​

Children don't have survival instincts? You mean, like, not touching hot things?

Humans have a lot of instincts. And why should you determine how good social animals are at surviving by removing them them from the group they rely on? That's not fair. Other animals learn from example.

Why? If you compare a social animal to a solitary animal, isn't that unfair? I never said humans didn't have instincts- but it seems more like they develop them as they grow up. Survival instincts are different in humans because of their development. Baby animals know they need to walk within an hour of birth in order for them to survive- humans cannot do this. They take at least a year to learn how to walk. Comparing humans to social animals- which humans are- seems plenty fair to me.​

 

[Tathariel]

Sorry, but it is a choice to believe in something. If someone lets you down constantly and always tell you to keep believing in them, are you going to? Highly doubtful. If you have hope for something, that's where belief can be put into play. You hope someone is up there watching over you and want to believe in it. But if you lose that hope, that faith, you can't believe in it anymore. And no, Mcdonalds/Burger King is a wicked stupid analogy and wasn't what I was going for at all. You believe in something because you have enough evidence, enough reason to do so. If you don't have those reasons anymore, you won't believe in something.

And my analogy previously was perfectly sound. And if you take away bits and pieces of hardware, more than likely it won't work right and that's how we get crazy people. :3 unless it's like, abnormalities like a tumor, then things will go back to normal.

This is how other religions are made. You don't believe in one religion because another suits what you think is right. Let me emphasize that. What you THINK is right in the world based on information you've been given. I don't believe there is really a God. I never have, even when given information that "hey, maybe there is one," when I was child. Too much reasons out there make me believe there cannot be one. But that's my personal preference. You can't necessarily change a belief because you let it be ingrained into your system.

Now I will quote Dogma:

Rufus:He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.​

I believe in aliens! However there is no proof of their existence.
Some time ago, everyone thought the earth was flat. Someone was like, "gee, I wonder if thats true"

I wonder what ancient human was thinking when the idea of a higher power occurred to him.
He was probably terrified.

I believe in a higher power, and all the proof I need is all around me.
Cosmic soup suddenly doing amazing and incomprehensible things that just happens to randomly, over a bajillion years, turn into the computer your typing on, the people your arguing with, and the earth outside?

Sorry. To me, that sounds just as far-fetched as.....well.....as a man and a woman eating an apple and starting humanity.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I believe in a higher power, and all the proof I need is all around me.
Cosmic soup suddenly doing amazing and incomprehensible things that just happens to randomly, over a bajillion years, turn into the computer your typing on, the people your arguing with, and the earth outside?

Sorry. To me, that sounds just as far-fetched as.....well.....as a man and a woman eating an apple and starting humanity.

What? I believe that evolution is entirely plausible. But that's another topic now isn't it? But you just made it sound like you contradicted yourself. You do or don't believe in a higher power? GRAMMAR MAN!​

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

The whole everyone thought the earth was flat is actually wrong. The Greeks originally concluded that the earth was round and estimated the size of it.

They came pretty close to our current accurate dimension.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I believe yes, she means like not touching hot things, which there are numerous examples of that every day. And the feral children link I think was just to refute the point of how much instincts humans have. I think we have lots of instinctual tendencies that express in sometimes odd ways, but there's no instinct we can't unlearn, so they're not as strong in us as others. And you're right, we learn many things by example, but that's not what Grumm was talking about, and what Grumm was talking about is what Hahvy was addressing.

That's all. I don't think she's objecting to the level you're speaking to.

I didn't see this until now, but pretty much.

And yes, Nihil, the Greeks were pretty fuckin' smart. But once things started going out of whack, a lot of that information was lost or ridiculed. I think. I can't quite remember. But a lot of the europeans of that time were really full of themselves.​

 

[Tathariel]

I believe in a higher power, and all the proof I need is all around me.
Cosmic soup suddenly doing amazing and incomprehensible things that just happens to randomly, over a bajillion years, turn into the computer your typing on, the people your arguing with, and the earth outside?

Sorry. To me, that sounds just as far-fetched as.....well.....as a man and a woman eating an apple and starting humanity.

What? I believe that evolution is entirely plausible. But that's another topic now isn't it? But you just made it sound like you contradicted yourself. You do or don't believe in a higher power? GRAMMAR MAN!​

LOL, I do, I'm just saying, no matter how you cut it, everything sounds crazy.

 

[Mr Master]

Tath, that just made... You know, I think you're talking Creationism, in which case I'd have to refer you to a plethora of books and sites and data on the subject. But essentially, nobody knows how life came about on this planet, and nobody's going to know. And believe in a Holy Kickstarter all you want, but how does that affect us in the present? If there was some kind of Divine Spark, that's great, but where did it go after that, and why isn't it around now, in a way that can be determined?

Muddying the waters of an existing conversation is good sport, sure, but this is supposed to be an Academy forum, so you ought to have some rational purpose behind your interjection. Care to enlighten us as to yours?

FAKE EDIT: Everything sounds crazy? That's... your contribution? All right, then.



Nihil: there's a lot of stuff that modern thinkers like to ascribe to past beliefs. Not a whole lot of it is true, or at least not for everyone.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I say Creationism aka Intelligent Design is Magic theory.

"How did this come to being?"

"MAGIC! 8D"

But that's for another topic.

I can never believe something so far-fetched as Adam and Eve. If that were true, then we would all be related and have been living in a giant cess pool of...incest.​

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

This would probably be a good time to mention that scientist of recently discovered Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

You can read about it here.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

This would probably be a good time to mention that scientist of recently discovered Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

You can read about it here.

I actually watched something that said that modern humans wiped out neanderthals in the end- even if we managed to mate with them.​

 

[Tathariel]

Tath, that just made... You know, I think you're talking Creationism, in which case I'd have to refer you to a plethora of books and sites and data on the subject. But essentially, nobody knows how life came about on this planet, and nobody's going to know. And believe in a Holy Kickstarter all you want, but how does that affect us in the present? If there was some kind of Divine Spark, that's great, but where did it go after that, and why isn't it around now, in a way that can be determined?

Muddying the waters of an existing conversation is good sport, sure, but this is supposed to be an Academy forum, so you ought to have some rational purpose behind your interjection. Care to enlighten us as to yours?

FAKE EDIT: Everything sounds crazy? That's... your contribution? All right, then.



Nihil: there's a lot of stuff that modern thinkers like to ascribe to past beliefs. Not a whole lot of it is true, or at least not for everyone.

Way to try to make me sound like a jackass MM.
I don't really have anything as you say...."rational" to add. Define rational. To myself, the idea of evolution just kinda happening is irrational. I believe in evolution! I just think something bigger than us got the ball rolling.

As you said, "how does it affect us in the present." As far as I can tell, it doesn't. I feel no obligation to worship, if a god wanted us to do that, it would have made all of us do it. As for where that divine spark went, why its not around, and in what way to prove? I couldn't really answer that. It's called faith.

I really dont know why I'm wasting my breath, I'm sure your going to try and make me sound like an idiot again. Your rather good at that.

I say Creationism aka Intelligent Design is Magic theory.

"How did this come to being?"

"MAGIC! 8D"

But that's for another topic.

I can never believe something so far-fetched as Adam and Eve. If that were true, then we would all be related and have been living in a giant cess pool of...incest.​

Magic???....Really?....If something naturally had the power to shape the universe, it would be magic to you? To itself, its just doing what it does. The same as bees making honey.
They just do.

 

[Grumm]

"You've obviously never done much research into how people fall out of belief or how people like priests handle their devotion."

"Sorry, but it is a choice to believe in something. If someone lets you down constantly and always tell you to keep believing in them, are you going to? Highly doubtful."

For those of you who want to insist that belief, or disbelief, is a choice, I'd like to invite you all to believe that right now, outside your house in the nearest tree, is a colony of trolls. These trolls are responsible for you misplacing things; whenever something's not where you remember putting it, the trolls are responsible. At the same time, I'd like you to try not believing in gravity. Just decide it simply doesn't exist.

Now, if belief is a choice, you should be able to accept both of these things without any problems. Not only should you be able to accept them, but they should make so much sense as to become basic part of your overall outlook of the world as a whole. You should be able to feel he truth of such statements so deeply that it's inconceivable to have ever thought otherwise.

Can anyone do it? Can anyone truly bring themselves to believe such nonsense?

Hahvoc, I think you missed a part where I said you can both subtract AND add components to hardware; taking a computer for example, you can add more memory, a better video card, a new drive, etc etc. Thus your analogy is not a very good one, because you can modify a piece of hardware in a positive manner.

As for studying this, I've spent the last four years studying religion, it's effects on people, and it's affects one society. The more devout most people are, I've found, the easier their belief becomes. To say that real belief is hard, because it's natural to doubt, is incorrect. After all, the men and women strapping bombs to themselves and going for a bus ride don't seem to have any doubt whatsoever that they're right. Same with these psycho-evangelists who try and push ID; the documentary Jesus Camp is a horrifying look at this kind of thing.

Another good look at belief, and how it's not a choice, would be Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became one of America's Leading Atheists, by Dan Barker. The first few chapters, where he recounts his time as a preacher, he mentions numerous times how he 'knew' that he was right, how he 'knew' that God was real. He then goes into how he began to doubt, until finally he realizes he no longer believes. No choice involved.

Belief is something that happens.