One point in favour of this theory is that it solves the puzzle of the buggered altar boy. The puzzle is that the sexual misconduct is committed by some-one who thinks that they face eternal damnation for their sins. How does that work? If you really believed in eternal damnation and you were feeling temptations that were gradually gaining the upperhand, you would have a nervous breakdown.

Isn’t that what “forgiveness” is for? Merely confess your sins and repent, and all will be forgiven…

And in any case, no human being has well calibrated probability assessments, and so in this sense there is no human being who does not “nudge” his probability assessments without evidence, whether he wishes to or not.

The problem is a problem with logic itself, which is brittle. Any form of intelligence needs hardening against contradictions. So all functioning intelligences probably “implication barriers” and “chain length limits” to stop contradictions propagating and crashing the system.

In mammals, thinking seems bolted on, on top of a short term reward system, and beliefs have emotional impact; that is part of how the brain works. What happens to beliefs that are within implication barriers?

The thinker cannot adjust them to correspond to reality because he does not draw their implications. That means he cannot check their implications against reality. On the other hand he doesn’t act on their implications, so there is a certain freedom of choice, due to lack of consequences for worldy action. One expects the thinker to chose the beliefs that are most emotionally satisfying. Religion is about wireheading the implication barriers.

One point in favour of this theory is that it solves the puzzle of the buggered altar boy. The puzzle is that the sexual misconduct is committed by some-one who thinks that they face eternal damnation for their sins. How does that work? If you really believed in eternal damnation and you were feeling temptations that were gradually gaining the upperhand, you would have a nervous breakdown.

The answer is that the belief is behind an implication barrier. It is pleasant, perhaps, to believe that ones meagre rewards in this life will be topped up in the next and that your enemies will answer for their crimes, if not now, eventually. But one does not draw implications. One does not think: I know, I’ll commit suicide and get to heaven sooner,… Nor does one think: if I give in to tempation, and since I know that people who give in to temptation are damned, then the implication is that I will be damned too.

You know, there is a vast body of knowledge on the sociology of religion. Since this blog is dedicated to big T Truth, you might consult some of it rather than making up stuff just because it sounds good.

“In the teachings of the Bible, in contrast, it is necessary to have faith, utter and uncritical confidence, a conception quite alien to the spirit of Greek philosophy.*”

“* For classical greek philosophy, as for Plato, faith (pistis) is the lowest form of belief, characteristic only of the wholly uneducated, who fail to reflect critically on what they experience or are told. The Jewish-inspired Christian emphasis on faith struck educated pagan observers with astonishment; it represented, in their eyes, the extreme of anti-intellectualism – ‘foolishness’.”

From page 78 “The Perfectibility of Man” by John Passmore (1970)who is Professor of Philosophy at Australian National University. It is well worth a read if you are interested in the history if ideas (including Catholicism and Reason)