Jane Galt wonders why she prays to a being in whom she doesn't believe (and let me extend my best wishes, though not prayers, for the health of her dog). As I've noted before, I've never done this, or had an urge to, but perhaps I've never been under sufficient duress. On the other hand, I've heard that, in fact, there are atheists in foxholes.

I don't know if Jane's response to her dog's condition indicates an inherent religious tendency or not. I suspect that it's a simple human response to beg for help when one is powerless. Whether you're begging anyone in particular or not is moot. It's like screaming when in pain even if there's no one around to hear and render assistance. A useless gesture which nevertheless helps the person vent his (or in this case, her) feelings.

I recall a History Channel documentary some time back in which an American WW2 veteran who'd done serious time as a POW of the Japanese observed that he couldn't say about foxholes, but he knew a lot of atheists in the camps.

from Mr Clines article: Would God even want people to believe merely because they were under great pressure and very afraid?

My personal belief is that he does indeed want everyone, regardless of the amount of adrenaline in their blood stream.

Rand,
I'm glad that you've never been in a situation that caused you to go to your knees in prayer. Hopefully you'll live out your days in that way.

Many of us find ourselves at some point in the other situation. Repeatedly in fact.

Megan McArdle is a silly young person. As soon as she has a young child of her own, she'll recognize that she was bargaining with Mommy. Mommy, as you'll recall, can do anything. It's perfectly reasonable to bargain with Mommy to save your dog's life. She might.

It's curious that the belief structure formed when you are 3 and 4 becomes so fossilized that it persists into adulth0od. But not entirely; it's said that what distinguishes H. sapiens most from other species is the way the adult preserves the typical features of the immature child (plasticity, impulsiveness, creativity, playfulness -- and here, faith). It's been a source of great strength to the species, but it does lead to these odd side effects, e.g. that you continue at some basic level to believe that Mommy is in charge longer after it becomes clear she isn't.

Carl, Western culture has traditionally thought of God as "Daddy," not "Mommy." For one thing, you don't have to bargain with Mommy -- she'll either do what you want, or tell you "Go ask your father."

"It's curious that the belief structure formed when you are 3 and 4 becomes so fossilized that it persists into adulth0od."

Aha. I see it clearly now. My belief, as with all belief in God is clearly so childish that it must come from me being stuck with the mental attitude of a 3 or 4 year old. Thank you for enlightening me.

As with most (in my opinion) pseudo psychological explainations of belief in God, most of these can work both ways. It's curious that the belief structure formed as an adolescent, when you desire greater freedom but no additional responsibility, becomes so folssilized that it persists into adulth0od where you believe there is no higher power to which you are responsible.

Carl, Western culture has traditionally thought of God as "Daddy," not "Mommy."

Ah? Ever hear of Ishtar? Gaia? Read The King Must Die by Mary Renault, for an interesting and entertaining story of the conflict between masculine and feminine gods.

Aha. I see it clearly now. My belief, as with all belief in God is clearly so childish that it must come from me being stuck with the mental attitude of a 3 or 4 year old. Thank you for enlightening me.

Try replacing "childish" with "child-like" to gain some perspective. Your intuitive understanding of gravity, friction and Newtonian mechanics, for example, was formed when you were less than 5. Does that make it unsophisticated? The assumption that anything formed in your brain when you were 3 is necessarily inferior to what you think up when you are 23 is one of those arrogances of late adolescence, when you (foolishly) think your conscious rational mind is the only possible fount of enlightenment. I'd expect better from a Christian, at least any decently versed in his own religion.

You are "stuck with" quite a lot of what developed in your brain when you were an infant, including your notion of what tastes good and what is probably poisonous, with how to walk and talk and understand the speech of others (possibly in several languages, depending on your upbringing), how to interpret facial expressions, how to infer the thoughts of others from their behaviour and speech, and on and on. By contrast your intellectual achievements when you are in your late teens and early adulthuud -- nothing more than learning calculus, pfui! -- are trivial.

As with most (in my opinion) pseudo psychological explainations of belief in God, most of these can work both ways.

Of course. But that doesn't make both of them equally correct. An appeal to authority can be a valid argument (if I'm arguing relativity and quoting Einstein) or bogus (if I'm arguing relativity and I quote Yogi Berra, or baseball and quote Einstein). The fact that the same form of argument can be used to draw valid as well as bogus conclusions means zip.

Furthermore, you'll note I made no argument for or against the existence of God. Your evident paranoia about the obvious psychological explanation for the feeling you get that He must exist would be better addressed by a bit of creative logical judo: you should join St. Augustine and assert that the innate feeling you have that there is a God may well be derived from your early experience of Mommy, but this is no mere accident. Rather, it is the way God ensures that if you mature properly you develop a natural emotional sense of the truth about His existence. Don't you think God is capable of giving you a deep conviction that He exists by means of certain psychological development in your infancy? Must He always be so fscking part-the-Red-Sea obvious -- just stuff the conviction of His existence right into your head, bam, no conceivable alternative explanation that might give your faith and doubt a little competition? Or can He sometimes be a bit subtle?

Consider it the equivalent of arguing that evolution, being such a wonderful, intricate, and clever machine, could only have been designed and set in motion by someone as clever as God: hence evolution itself proves the existence of God. Try that next time you have one of those unintelligent and uncreative Intelligent Design/literal Creation/evolution arguments.