Or, perhaps an explanation as to why we shouldn't accept the numbers game so readily.
Meaning, the Ad populum nonsense, and which is so often mentioned - especially here on RF - as to so many more being religious than not, hence they must be right or this just being natural.
The proposal: In essence, if the threshold for any particular belief, as to factors enabling true discrimination and true belief, is higher than shown averagely in any population, then usually there will be a greater number, and often by a long way, believing wrong things than those believing true things. And such depending upon where the threshold and where the average lie in any population.
It might seem obvious as to this fact, but the factors as to why some discern the truth and many don't might not be so obvious. And it might just be one factor or a mix of several.
So, some factors upon which we might agree or might not. If the latter then please state what you think might apply.
Intelligence would seem to be one obvious factor as to decision-making and hence correct belief, and IQ one indicator of such, but there will be many other things contributing to intelligence, and as to which usually do contribute as to whether right or wrong assessments are made. So, not just IQ. Possibly the simplest argument for intelligence being a factor probably would be in knowing that the more intelligent will probably be better at assessing multiple influences on any particular thing - rather than accepting that which seems obvious.
Other factors might be relevant too - how honest one is and how much integrity one has, given that no matter how intelligent one is, how one sifts the evidence (especially so as to not simply prefer that which might support one's views) will provide the evidence upon which the mind chews. And which might be why those who intensely study religious texts might be more at risk than those who cast their nets wider. But those who tend to look for all relevant evidence that might impact any particular subject surely will be better off. And of course, education and access to information will be important.
Something else as to why one might have a lower threshold as to believing any particular thing, and a fallacy also, might be as to reverence towards authority and/or history - in that one might either believe history 'as read' - but perhaps written by the winners as is commonly observed - or one might simply accept the authority bestowed on institutions and such over time, and religions being prime examples of this. Given that it might take some courage and ability to be sceptical so as to not let such things dominate one's thinking - especially where they are simply wrong or have poor foundations. An example of the latter might be in accepting texts from the past and where they simply do not have sufficient corroboration from anything that is not aligned with whatever they project or promote - that is, independent verification. Similarly, relying on some 'expert' to translate and/or interpret such texts might also mean errors are likely and/or particular paths taken.
Additional aspects that might be barriers as to obtaining truthful answers might be individual experiences or prior beliefs, given that the latter are often not so easy to remove (and often does impact one's thinking), and the former often depends upon how much one is attuned to oneself and/or has some knowledge of mind processes as to how one interprets such experiences. Given that the mind has numerous ways of deceiving us, either via our senses or by our often irrational thinking, and often by a combination of these.
Lastly, with respect to the starting presumption mentioned - that most people have a religious belief or are spiritual, and hence right - it should hardly pass our notice that most people obtain their religious beliefs whilst being children, and where they hardly have a voice over such. When religious education (of young children) falls out of favour, perhaps then we will know if religions are the genuine voice of the people. Not that it matters, since as mentioned, there is more at stake here than mere numbers. Not to mention also of course the many different belief systems that rather mess up the notion that the 'majority' believe any one such-and-such and are therefore right.
What do you think? Either as to factors determining choice, or perhaps as to things being as simple as they look - given that some here on RF appear to see it this way.
Meaning, the Ad populum nonsense, and which is so often mentioned - especially here on RF - as to so many more being religious than not, hence they must be right or this just being natural.
The proposal: In essence, if the threshold for any particular belief, as to factors enabling true discrimination and true belief, is higher than shown averagely in any population, then usually there will be a greater number, and often by a long way, believing wrong things than those believing true things. And such depending upon where the threshold and where the average lie in any population.
It might seem obvious as to this fact, but the factors as to why some discern the truth and many don't might not be so obvious. And it might just be one factor or a mix of several.
So, some factors upon which we might agree or might not. If the latter then please state what you think might apply.
Intelligence would seem to be one obvious factor as to decision-making and hence correct belief, and IQ one indicator of such, but there will be many other things contributing to intelligence, and as to which usually do contribute as to whether right or wrong assessments are made. So, not just IQ. Possibly the simplest argument for intelligence being a factor probably would be in knowing that the more intelligent will probably be better at assessing multiple influences on any particular thing - rather than accepting that which seems obvious.
Other factors might be relevant too - how honest one is and how much integrity one has, given that no matter how intelligent one is, how one sifts the evidence (especially so as to not simply prefer that which might support one's views) will provide the evidence upon which the mind chews. And which might be why those who intensely study religious texts might be more at risk than those who cast their nets wider. But those who tend to look for all relevant evidence that might impact any particular subject surely will be better off. And of course, education and access to information will be important.
Something else as to why one might have a lower threshold as to believing any particular thing, and a fallacy also, might be as to reverence towards authority and/or history - in that one might either believe history 'as read' - but perhaps written by the winners as is commonly observed - or one might simply accept the authority bestowed on institutions and such over time, and religions being prime examples of this. Given that it might take some courage and ability to be sceptical so as to not let such things dominate one's thinking - especially where they are simply wrong or have poor foundations. An example of the latter might be in accepting texts from the past and where they simply do not have sufficient corroboration from anything that is not aligned with whatever they project or promote - that is, independent verification. Similarly, relying on some 'expert' to translate and/or interpret such texts might also mean errors are likely and/or particular paths taken.
Additional aspects that might be barriers as to obtaining truthful answers might be individual experiences or prior beliefs, given that the latter are often not so easy to remove (and often does impact one's thinking), and the former often depends upon how much one is attuned to oneself and/or has some knowledge of mind processes as to how one interprets such experiences. Given that the mind has numerous ways of deceiving us, either via our senses or by our often irrational thinking, and often by a combination of these.
Lastly, with respect to the starting presumption mentioned - that most people have a religious belief or are spiritual, and hence right - it should hardly pass our notice that most people obtain their religious beliefs whilst being children, and where they hardly have a voice over such. When religious education (of young children) falls out of favour, perhaps then we will know if religions are the genuine voice of the people. Not that it matters, since as mentioned, there is more at stake here than mere numbers. Not to mention also of course the many different belief systems that rather mess up the notion that the 'majority' believe any one such-and-such and are therefore right.
What do you think? Either as to factors determining choice, or perhaps as to things being as simple as they look - given that some here on RF appear to see it this way.
Last edited:
