Top-down study of beliefs

The discussion about definition of an atheist gave me this idea. When studying beliefs such as Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc. maybe we should ignore the details of beliefs and simply study the implications on behavior, mental health, etc? For example, we might take some ideal atheists, ideal Christians, ideal Buddhists, etc. and measure various parameters - physical health, income, criminal background, whatever.
So for example, the definition of atheist becomes: a person whose parameters match the ideal atheist (as opposed to claiming to believe or not believe something).
This is analogous to the gender-identity tests where a person can be biologically one gender and behaviorally the other gender.

You got me, what is the ideal atheist?
For me it would be the Gnostic Jesus.
But I don’t think to many people will agree with me.

How do you define “ideal Atheist” or “ideal Buddhist” while ignoring the details of their beliefs?

The discussion about definition of an atheist gave me this idea. When studying beliefs such as Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc. maybe we should ignore the details of beliefs and simply study the implications on behavior, mental health, etc? For example, we might take some ideal atheists, ideal Christians, ideal Buddhists, etc. and measure various parameters - physical health, income, criminal background, whatever. So for example, the definition of atheist becomes: a person whose parameters match the ideal atheist (as opposed to claiming to believe or not believe something). This is analogous to the gender-identity tests where a person can be biologically one gender and behaviorally the other gender.
What beliefs do you think an atheist has, ideal or otherwise? Lois
You got me, what is the ideal atheist? For me it would be the Gnostic Jesus. But I don’t think to many people will agree with me.
That's an interesting idea. I don't know how you define the Gnostic Jesus. I've been reading "Early Christianity" by Geza Vermes.
How do you define "ideal Atheist" or "ideal Buddhist" while ignoring the details of their beliefs?
If we can't find any measurable differences that result from a belief then I would argue that it isn't very important. Here is an example: Atheists believe that death is the end. Muslims believe they will be judged after death. We should be able to study terminally ill people and see a difference in the behavior of atheists and Muslims - particularly if they are ideals of their philosophy/religion. These are the types of things we could measure to understand beliefs top-down.
What beliefs do you think an atheist has, ideal or otherwise? Lois
From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important. We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers. In other words we don't care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.
What beliefs do you think an atheist has, ideal or otherwise? Lois
From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important. We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers. In other words we don't care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe. Then all atheists who do not believe in impossible things and exhibit intelligence and human compassion are ideal atheists. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Lois
Then all atheists who do not believe in impossible things and exhibit intelligence and human compassion are ideal atheists. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Lois
I'm not sure if human compassion should be a factor. My image of an ideal atheist would be an atheist from birth who has had minimal exposure to religious culture (maybe raised in the Soviet Union). We could collect those people into a sample and try to find common behaviors that contrast with behaviors of ideal Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/... Then we could use those behaviors as indicators of atheism. Probably using the word "ideal" is confusing. "Pure" might be a better word.
Then all atheists who do not believe in impossible things and exhibit intelligence and human compassion are ideal atheists. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Lois
I'm not sure if human compassion should be a factor. My image of an ideal atheist would be an atheist from birth who has had minimal exposure to religious culture (maybe raised in the Soviet Union). We could collect those people into a sample and try to find common behaviors that contrast with behaviors of ideal Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/... Then we could use those behaviors as indicators of atheism. Probably using the word "ideal" is confusing. "Pure" might be a better word. I don't know. Isn't everyone's lack of belief in a deity pure? I don't think atheism has qualifiers. You are either an atheist or you're not. What else is there? Lois
I don't know. Isn't everyone's lack of belief in a deity pure? I don't think atheism has qualifiers. You are either an atheist or you're not. What else is there? Lois
You're modeling your brain as a consistent, organized, machine containing a toggle switch labeled "atheist". In my own case I am both an atheist and a Christian and many other things. I'm not undecided; I'm multiple different people occupying the same brain and body. Actually I tried to explain this idea on another forum, and I was surprised that nobody seemed to agree. But I think everybody is really this way a little, and they don't realize it. Maybe a computer analogy would help. A person grows up in a Christian household so they have a Christian OS, Christian device drivers, Christian applications, and hard disk full of Christian files. Now the dominant application is replaced by an atheist version, but the OS, device drivers, and files are still Christian versions. A pure atheist is the computer that has never had anything except atheism installed and has had minimal contact with non-atheist computers.
From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important. We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers. In other words we don't care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.
It sounds like you want to study some effects based on self-reported belief categories. I don't see any other way to do what you want, because what may be an "ideal Taoist" or any other ideal belief system changes over time.
Here is an example: Atheists believe that death is the end.
No, atheists believe that God doesn't exist. I know many atheists think that life goes on after death.
From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important. We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers. In other words we don't care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.
It sounds like you want to study some effects based on self-reported belief categories. I don't see any other way to do what you want, because what may be an "ideal Taoist" or any other ideal belief system changes over time. Yes, I think that's a good summary. I'm curious how these beliefs like atheism, Christianity, etc. affect behavior. I have a suspicion that belief is not a significant factor in practical behavior and moral choices in most cases.
Here is an example: Atheists believe that death is the end.
No, atheists believe that God doesn't exist. I know many atheists think that life goes on after death. Well that's a new one. I think they are being a little bit inconsistent to reject a belief in God due to lack of evidence and continue to believe in some sort of life after death.

Could the Hindu and Buddha fall in that category?

From a top-down view the beliefs inside the mind are not important. We should treat the mind as a black box and only look at the behavior of that ideal believer versus other types of ideal believers. In other words we don't care what the atheist claims to believe or not believe.
It sounds like you want to study some effects based on self-reported belief categories. I don't see any other way to do what you want, because what may be an "ideal Taoist" or any other ideal belief system changes over time. Yes, I think that's a good summary. I'm curious how these beliefs like atheism, Christianity, etc. affect behavior. I have a suspicion that belief is not a significant factor in practical behavior and moral choices in most cases.¨ Atheism is not a belief. I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That's why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that's why people blow themselves up and kill "witches" and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.
Could the Hindu and Buddha fall in that category?
I think Hinduism and Buddhism ought to be studied along with all the other common religions. A study might find that there is more in common between certain Christian sects and certain Hindu sects than there is within each religion. I just think it would be interesting - like cladistics applied to beliefs.
I think our beliefs often determine our behavior and our treatment of others. That's why people oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, access to contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, evolution, feminism, that's why people blow themselves up and kill "witches" and imprison or persecute atheists and so on, because they believe certain things about the world.
Most of the issues you mentioned are wedge issues used by political parties to divide the opposition's supporters. I've found that when people are actually faced with real life decisions instead of abstractions that their behavior is less polarized.

I am active in my local Unitarian Universalist congregation. We are a group of free-thinkers. Most do not believe in any “supernatural” aspects of religion; we do however, draw inspiration from many faiths. For example, we might focus on the concept that Jesus was possibly a real man who walked the earth preaching love and helping people, while we reject the supernatural aspects or any negative old testament or even negative new testament teachings. I believe you can still be an atheist, as I am, and still draw meaning and lessons from these ancient texts, regardless of their origins. I can pick up the Bible and read it with the approach I read any book–I can extrapolate from it what I want, viewing it as tales or folklore.