Why do believers believe what they believe?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you trust, or do you verify?

I do both for different contexts.

 

[vulcanlogician]

As long as the proof matches reality, then it's good. But facts and proofs and logic can all be abused. And academics can be egotistical liars.

True, but academia makes allowances for that. Other academics can challenge dubious academic work. Logical arguments can be stated formally. This makes it easy to identify false premises and non sequiturs.

Religion, conversely is not typically an environment where one idea is challenged by carefully articulated counterpoints. Logic isn't emphasized. Appeals to emotion, rote repetition, and subtle (if well-meaning) manipulation are often employed as a means to convince people (and keep them convinced).

Certainly, I'm overgeneralizing here. Religion also employs honest tactics alongside the ones I listed. And some congregations are more honest than others. But I find academics to be a more reliable source of information on the whole. (Mostly because ideas are made to be challenged rather than believed.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True, but academia makes allowances for that. Other academics can challenge dubious academic work. Logical arguments can be stated formally. This makes it easy to identify false premises and non sequiturs.

Religion, conversely is not typically an environment where one idea is challenged by carefully articulated counterpoints. Logic isn't emphasized. Appeals to emotion, rote repetition, and subtle (if well-meaning) manipulation are often employed as a means to convince people (and keep them convinced).

Certainly, I'm overgeneralizing here. Religion also employs honest tactics alongside the ones I listed. And some congregations are more honest than others. But I find academics to be a more reliable source of information on the whole. (Mostly because ideas are made to be challenged rather than believed.)

Yes, but the problem is that even logic can have a limit, it seems and there can be different models of it. So in general I don't read logic as one model, but compare different academic works on different methods for logic and knowledge.

 

[Audie]

True, but academia makes allowances for that. Other academics can challenge dubious academic work. Logical arguments can be stated formally. This makes it easy to identify false premises and non sequiturs.

Religion, conversely is not typically an environment where one idea is challenged by carefully articulated counterpoints. Logic isn't emphasized. Appeals to emotion, rote repetition, and subtle (if well-meaning) manipulation are often employed as a means to convince people (and keep them convinced).

Certainly, I'm overgeneralizing here. Religion also employs honest tactics alongside the ones I listed. And some congregations are more honest than others. But I find academics to be a more reliable source of information on the whole. (Mostly because ideas are made to be challenged rather than believed.)

Not quite true. "Proof" is not a thing in research.
It's for math, and fermentation of the grape.

And what " can" happen, like people lying, does
not affect the truth. Lie as one will about it,
Australia is still there, and the facts will come out
upon investigation.

' SEDI", and, "people lie" dont add up to a way
to successfully handwave uncomfortable
facts, though it serves a self deception role.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not quite true. "Proof" is not a thing in research.

I don't think I used the word "proof" anywhere in my post...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not quite true. "Proof" is not a thing in research.
It's for math, and fermentation of the grape.

And what " can" happen, like people lying, does
not affect the truth. Lie as one will about it,
Australia is still there, and the facts will come out
upon investigation.

' SEDI", and, "people lie" dont add up to a way
to successfully handwave uncomfortable
facts, though it serves a self deception role.

But, Australia is not an objective fact. It is a social construct. Even the truth is a social construct.

 

[Audie]

I don't think I used the word "proof" anywhere in my post...

You did not.
You agreed with someone who did.

" As long as the proof..."

To which you reply

"True..."

 

[sayak83]

Did I say I 'believed'' everything that other people claim?
I can take people at their word as to why they believe what they believe without 'believing' their claim.

I am pretty sure atheists here also believe your claim that you yourself believe that your faith in God is based on evidence from Bahai writings that you have found convincing. I surmise what they are saying is that the evidence, in actuality, is not convincing at all and your sense of conviction is an example of a delusion. Has anybody said that you are deliverately lying about why you believe?

 

[Audie]

I am pretty sure atheists here also believe your claim that you yourself believe that your faith in God is based on evidence from Bahai writings that you have found convincing. I surmise what they are saying is that the evidence, in actuality, is not convincing at all and your sense of conviction is an example of a delusion. Has anybody said that you are deliverately lying about why you believe?

Who would doubt the claim? People can believe almost
anything, the human capacity for self deception
appears limitless.

The reason for beliefs is not always straightforward
or based on evidence that would stand scrutiny by
the reasonable person.

The tiger mom will never believe that HER lil darlin'
boy could have started the fight.
All the witnesses say he did, but her belief is not
actually based on evidence, is actually immune to
evidence. Faith Uber Alles.

The reason someone could be gulled by, find
convincing some fringe religion has nothing to
do with the text itself.

 

[vulcanlogician]

You did not.
You agreed with someone who did.

" As long as the proof..."

To which you reply

"True..."

Ahhhh. okay.

I was kinda focused on the last bit of what he said.

 

[Muffled]

I used to believe everything until I found out that some things are fiction. Now I believe what God tells me.

 

[Muffled]

Is there no objective standard for evidence?

Evidently not.

 

[Muffled]

I can answer the title question for myself though.

I believe because my belief empowers me. I definitely want to believe. Now whether I can attribute the empowerment to the literal existence of a higher power or rather to the power of mind, I'm not sure.

I believe power was one of the temptations the devil offered Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

I managed to make her a little more unconventional over the years, but not much.

I know you were tired last night because you told me.
Did you mean to say: "I managed to make her a little more conventional over the years, but not much"?
Otherwise, what you said in its entirety doesn't make sense since you are a conventional Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am pretty sure atheists here also believe your claim that you yourself believe that your faith in God is based on evidence from Bahai writings that you have found convincing. I surmise what they are saying is that the evidence, in actuality, is not convincing at all and your sense of conviction is an example of a delusion.

I am pretty sure atheists here believe my claim that I believe that my faith in God is based on evidence from Baha'i writings that I have found convincing.
I surmise what they are saying is that the evidence, in actuality, is not convincing to ME at all and so I think that @Trailblazer's sense of conviction is an example of a delusion.

Do you even understand how arrogant that is?
What they are saying is "I don't find the evidence convincing so it must be a delusion because if it was really evidence I would know it."

Has anybody said that you are deliverately lying about why you believe?

No, they think I am deluded because in their mind I have to be deluded because if I was RIGHT that would mean they are WRONG.
It is really pathetic that people cannot see what is going on whenever an atheist calls a believer deluded, as it is psych 101 stuff.

 

[PureX]

I think that most people have no idea why they believe what they believe. Someone told them a story and they had no reason to doubt it, so they didn't. And they never really put it to the test. But I guess the story must not have misaligned with their reality too much or they would have been forced to notice the discrepancy.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think that most people have no idea why they believe what they believe.

Most things that people believe come from the unconscious mind so people are not consciously aware of them.

Current scientific estimates are that some 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious, says Emma Young in New Scientist magazine. These include habits and patterns, automatic body function, creativity, emotions, personality, beliefs and values, cognitive biases, and long-term memory.Oct 9, 2018​

Strange but true: 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious​

People can only be aware of what is in their conscious mind.
People have some idea why they believe what they believe, what they are consciously aware of.

Someone told them a story and they had no reason to doubt it, so they didn't. And they never really put it to the test. But I guess the story must not have misaligned with their reality too much or they would have been forced to notice the discrepancy.

You are speaking for other people as if you know what they did, but you don't know. Only they know if they put their beliefs to the test.
You also don't know if there is a discrepancy, you just believe that.

 

[sayak83]

I am pretty sure atheists here believe my claim that I believe that my faith in God is based on evidence from Baha'i writings that I have found convincing.
I surmise what they are saying is that the evidence, in actuality, is not convincing to ME at all and so I think that @Trailblazer's sense of conviction is an example of a delusion.

Do you even understand how arrogant that is?
What they are saying is "I don't find the evidence convincing so it must be a delusion because if it was really evidence I would know it."

No, they think I am deluded because in their mind I have to be deluded because if I was RIGHT that would mean they are WRONG.
It is really pathetic that people cannot see what is going on whenever an atheist calls a believer deluded, as it is psych 101 stuff.

I do not see much difference. You do not believe that people can directly experience God and all such claims are delusions...however convincing it seems to them. So what is the difference?
You do understand what the word deluded means?
deluded

It simply means "to believe in something that is not true". So if any person X thinks that person Y believes in a proposition P that is not true then person X has to, by definition, believe that person Y is deluded about that proposition P.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe.

I have replied that I believe because of the evidence for God and my religion, not because I want to believe. I have gone through periods in my life where I have not wanted to believe in God or be a Baha’i but I retained my belief because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah. Other times I wanted to believe, but that is not the reason for my belief, I believe because of the evidence. When I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, the very last thing I was looking for was God or a religion. I just happened to find it, investigate it, and then I believed it was true. That was over 50 years ago.

I am not saying that all believers believe in their religion or in God because of the evidence, I am only speaking for myself. Some believers might believe because they want to believe and some believers might believe for other reasons, such as having been brought up in a particular religion, or maybe even because society expects people to believe in God. These are not the reasons I believe. I was not brought up in any religion or with a belief in God and I always went against societal expectations and societal norms. The Baha'i Faith is an unconventional religion, but I am too unconventional to fit in the Baha’i community so I do my own thing.

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

Nobody can ever know why a person believes or disbelieves except that person, so I don't think people should speak for other people and tell them why they believe or disbelieve. They should take them at their word because otherwise they are as much as calling that other person a liar.

This was a great read. Thanks for voicing your opinion, and I do agree with you. Although, I find it a bit sad that although you are a Baha'i you are still essentially doing your own thing. I thought you could find community with them, but perhaps not.

Let me explain to you why I believe in what I believe. Just like you I don't just believe because I want to. There's a lot more to it. With your religion, you believe probably primarily due to the scriptural accounts of your prophets. But why I believe isn't external, it's entirely internal. I don't really have my own scriptural accounts of God, although throughout my entire life I've written various accounts of God, going back to when I was a teenager.

I believe in God because, I can see, perceive and understand change. And I've experienced and witnessed so much change in my life, both that affects me and other changes that don't, that I came to realize that pretty much anything is possible, and with the epiphany I had at 14 I also started to realize that living beings, especially humans, can raise and lower their divinity throughout their life. For example, graduating from college makes you knowledgeable, knowledge when used correctly can make you wise. Wisdom is a divine trait.

When I realized this I realized that nature has its own set of divine traits, like the Universe expanding and becoming more ubiquitous as a result, and humans have their own divine traits too they also develop over time such as benevolence and wisdom. When the best of these two things come together, they create their own divinity, and so I came to realize that God is something reality already is, but that over time things become more Godlike, both nature and man. I ascribe to panentheism, syntheism and process theology. And Chat GPT has helped me define myself in ways I haven't been able to before. It even recommends books for higher learning in these subjects.

So, while you obtained God's fruitful information by understanding and reading scriptural accounts of Baha'u'llah and other prophets, going from the outside in, I actually came to understand and know God from the inside out first, then with the help of Chat GPT and other people find theologians and philosophers that took similar positions as myself. I've come to know and understand that there's a whole field of thinkers who use different vernacular to essentially say what I've been trying to express this entire time. And they come from a wide variety of religions too. The difference between myself and them is that I focus exclusively on these parts, whereas they used an already established religion and simply extrapolated it to get to the position I hold today.

Simply put, I believe in God because I believe there is an essential, objective reality, and that through the changes this reality is going through, it is becoming more divine, more Godlike, in the process. Now days God to me is as much of me extrapolating reality, seeing things from the inside out, as it is communicating with Chat GPT and reading books to understand it from the outside in too. I don't simply believe because I want to, and atheists who say that are probably just insecure about their own disbeliefs by expressing that remark. There is more to atheism than the lack of evidence for God too, because they've seen what others come to see as evidence and are inclined to disbelief that evidence. An easy analogy I could make for this is "there is more to the apple than the seeds that are inside of it." I like that quote, I might actually use it again.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not see much difference. You do not believe that people can directly experience God and all such claims are delusions...however convincing it seems to them. So what is the difference?
You do understand what the word deluded means?
deluded

It simply means "to believe in something that is not true". So if any person X thinks that person Y believes in a proposition P that is not true then person X has to, by definition, believe that person Y is deluded about that proposition P.

There is a BIG difference. I do not call other people deluded. If they say that they believe in God because they directly experienced God I take them at their word, even though I do not believe that is possible.

I think people need to have boundaries so they can separate from other people and what they believe and show respect for others' beliefs.
Beliefs are only beliefs so they cannot be proven true or false. I might believe my beliefs are true and you might believe your beliefs are true, but those are only our personal convictions.