Is a Belief a Claim?

[RestlessSoul]

Look at the statistics. Most believers don't change their religion in adulthood. The RF crowd is a self selected group which did or is at least questioning / thinking about their beliefs. Don't take us as an example, we are the exception.

That people continue to practice their religion, is not evidence that they don't question it. Pretty sure most people do, certainly in Europe. Some drift away and slowly drift back, others follow alternative religions or spiritual practices; the majority probably attend church or temple for baptisms, weddings, and funerals while holding no firm beliefs. The idea that huge numbers of people go a lifetime without questioning their core beliefs, be they spiritual, political, moral or philosophical, doesn't bear much scrutiny imo.

 

[Heyo]

That people continue to practice their religion, is not evidence that they don't question it. Pretty sure most people do, certainly in Europe. Some drift away and slowly drift back, others follow alternative religions or spiritual practices; the majority probably attend church or temple for baptisms, weddings, and funerals while holding no firm beliefs. The idea that huge numbers of people go a lifetime without questioning their core beliefs, be they spiritual, political, moral or philosophical, doesn't bear much scrutiny imo.

Most people question their belief in Santa and change it because it is socially accepted. But they still get buried at the same church they were baptized. That does hint at a lack of critical thinking. People are biased by availability and familiarity. Even those who do change from religion to another change to a convenient (available) church. No rational consideration of all options.

 

[Trailblazer]

However in religious discussions theists have a history of making truth claims concerning their religion/God

Yes, that is what many theists do, but that does not mean the everything that every theist says about their religion/God is a truth claim.

 

[Valjean]

Really? You don't think most adults question their childhood beliefs, when they reach adulthood?

The correlation between the religion of children and parents/peers seems to indicate they don't.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The correlation between the religion of children and parents/peers seems to indicate they don't.

Superficially, perhaps. Where is the evidence that those beliefs and practices have not been examined, and found to be of sufficient value to be worth retaining?

 

[Heyo]

Superficially, perhaps. Where is the evidence that those beliefs and practices have not been examined, and found to be of sufficient value to be worth retaining?

The unreasonable number of those retaining the beliefs and practices. There have been other non religious beliefs and practices that people have learned but not been indoctrinated into that went away pretty easily like e.g. not spending money you don't have.
And I think we can agree that there is no rational reason to stick to a certain religion even when you do stick to religion. It is just personal preference. That's why those few who do change, do that in in all directions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The unreasonable number of those retaining the beliefs and practices. There have been other non religious beliefs and practices that people have learned but not been indoctrinated into that went away pretty easily like e.g. not spending money you don't have.
And I think we can agree that there is no rational reason to stick to a certain religion even when you do stick to religion. It is just personal preference. That's why those few who do change, do that in in all directions.

Is it unreasonable to retain a connection to a religion that teaches love and fellowship, a God who offers solace in times of sorrow, a community offering love and support, and a cycle of rituals celebrating significant events through the year and through one’s life?

 

[Heyo]

Is it unreasonable to retain a connection to a religion that teaches love and fellowship, a God who offers solace in times of sorrow, a community offering love and support, and a cycle of rituals celebrating significant events through the year and through one’s life?

Don't all religions do that more or less? And wouldn't you expect that the difference in the religions at least would lead many more people to switch to a religion (or denomination) that fits their personal values and beliefs more closely? People are different and given how often people's beliefs contradict those of their religion/denomination a switch would be rational if they did an informed evaluation.

 

[Valjean]

Superficially, perhaps. Where is the evidence that those beliefs and practices have not been examined, and found to be of sufficient value to be worth retaining?

The fact that they exist across religions and cultures.
If one religion were better supported than all others you would expect to see it being adopted universally.
If people were actually critically examining the evidence, the best evidenced religion would prevail. Instead, people continue to follow the religion of their parents and culture. Arabs remain Muslim. Southern Americans remain Protestant. Israelis remain Jewish, &c.

People aren't trained to think. They don't know how. They don't understand science, evidence, or logic. They think they do, but they do not.
Going with the flow is the easy path, it doesn't require thought. It's the path of acceptance.
Dissent is hard. Bucking the system doesn't win friends, security or promotions.

 

[Valjean]

Is it unreasonable to retain a connection to a religion that teaches love and fellowship, a God who offers solace in times of sorrow, a community offering love and support, and a cycle of rituals celebrating significant events through the year and through one’s life?

Yes, it is unreasonable. Not impractical, mind you, but not reasonable; not mathematically, scientifically, factually, or logically correct.

If you use religion as a psychotherapeutic modality, or as a social club, that's fine -- but don't insist it's ontological truth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The fact that they exist across religions and cultures.
If one religion were better supported than all others you would expect to see it being adopted universally.
If people were actually critically examining the evidence, the best evidenced religion would prevail. Instead, people continue to follow the religion of their parents and culture. Arabs remain Muslim. Southern Americans remain Protestant. Israelis remain Jewish, &c.

People aren't trained to think. They don't know how. They don't understand science, evidence, or logic. They think they do, but they do not.
Going with the flow is the easy path, it doesn't require thought. It's the path of acceptance.
Dissent is hard. Bucking the system doesn't win friends, security or promotions.

All I see here is a lot of unevidenced assumptions, based on what you would expect to see if only the whole world thought like you. Which, rest assured, it is under no obligation to do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, it is unreasonable. Not impractical, mind you, but not reasonable; not mathematically, scientifically, factually, or logically correct.

If you use religion as a psychotherapeutic modality, or as a social club, that's fine -- but don't insist it's ontological truth.

Fine if you insist that your paradigm is always mathematically, scientifically, factually and logically correct; but I don’t think you’ll see much of the world from those rare and exalted intellectual heights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that is what many theists do, but that does not mean the everything that every theist says about their religion/God is a truth claim.

Most opinions of their gods, speculation about gods, etc. ("God is my rock" or "what would Jesus do?") aren't truth claims.

Factual statements are all truth claims. Truth claims prefaced with "I believe..." or "I'm not sure, but my personal view is...") are truth claims that aren't held with certainty, but they're still truth claims.

 

[PureX]

Most opinions of their gods, speculation about gods, etc. ("God is my rock" or "what would Jesus do?") aren't truth claims.

Factual statements are all truth claims. Truth claims prefaced with "I believe..." or "I'm not sure, but my personal view is...") are truth claims that aren't held with certainty, but they're still truth claims.

Actually, they're just opinions. Actual 'truth claims' are quite rare and mostly involve direct personal observation. "I spoke with God in a dream" is a truth claim. "God spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai" is an opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, they're just opinions.

Actual 'truth claims' are quite rare and mostly involve direct personal observation.

Where do you get this stuff from?

No, any statement about empirical reality is a truth claim.

"I spoke with God in a dream" is a truth claim. "God spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai" is an opinion.

No, both are truth claims.

What would not be a truth claim (about the event, anyhow) would be "the Bible says that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai"... though it's calling attention to the fact that there's a truth claim in the Bible.

 

[Valjean]

Fine if you insist that your paradigm is always mathematically, scientifically, factually and logically correct; but I don’t think you’ll see much of the world from those rare and exalted intellectual heights.

Why not? How would reason prevent a rich, full, cosmopolitan life?

 

[Trailblazer]

Truth claims prefaced with "I believe..." or "I'm not sure, but my personal view is...") are truth claims that aren't held with certainty, but they're still truth claims.

Those are not claims, they are statements of what one 'believes' to be true.
Someone has to be claiming something in order for it to be a claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those are not claims, they are statements of what one 'believes' to be true.

What do you see as the difference?

Someone has to be claiming something in order for it to be a claim.

But they are.

Edit: I mentioned the idea of citing a source earlier (e.g. "the Bible says that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai"). That would be one way to clarify that the speaker isn't making a claim. There's still a claim, though; it's just not their claim.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why not? How would reason prevent a rich, full, cosmopolitan life?

You don't get much perspective if you only admit to limited dimensions, is the point.

 

[CG Didymus]

"I spoke with God in a dream" is a truth claim. "God spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai" is an opinion.

No, both are truth claims.

What would not be a truth claim (about the event, anyhow) would be "the Bible says that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai"... though it's calling attention to the fact that there's a truth claim in the Bible.

I agree. Even with, "The Bible says that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai" is then followed up by some Christians with "And I believe it. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God." Which religion doesn't believe its teachings and Scripture are the truth? Why would they live by its teachings if they didn't believe it was the absolute truth?

The problems come when the true believer is asked "Why do you believe it is true?" Christianity has many Christians that have studied and found things that they believe are evidence and proof that God is real, that Jesus is real, and the Bible is for real and is the truth. My brother showed me a video from the 7th Day Adventists that shows evidence that "proves" that there was a world-wide flood.

They know they are claiming things and have done their research to try and support their claims. And the one claim they don't make is.... "Oh, it's just my belief. I can't prove it. But I know in my heart it must be true... I think?"