Why do people believe what they believe?

[Agnostic75]

A hundred years ago, creationism enjoyed exclusivity in U.S. public schools. Most Christians opposed a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Today, most Christians favor a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Why have Christians changed?

If Christians who favor a balanced approach today had been transported at birth back to a hundred years ago, most of them would not have favored a balanced approach. This indicates that social evolution, which is a secular factor, has a lot to do with why people believe what they believe. Today, most Christians oppose colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, but if they had lived hundreds of years ago, it is probable that the majority of them would have endorsed some or all of those things.

So, the century that a person is born in is a secular factor that influences what they believe.

Gender is another secular factor that influences what people believe since women are more likely to become theists than men are.

Geography is another secular factor that influences what believe because it is
well-established that, for example, the percentages of people who become Christians in predominantly Christian countries are much higher than the percentages of people who become Christians in countries that are predominantly non-Christian.

Age is another secular factor that influences what people believe because it is
well-established that elderly people are much less likely to give up their beliefs than younger people are.

I am pretty sure that in the first century, most people who became Christians had been followers of religions other than Judaism. Let's call people who became Christians who had been followers of religions other than Judaism Group A. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for anyone to claim that Group A "were not" honestly searching for the truth when the followed pagan religions, and "were" honestly searching for the truth when they accepted Christianity. Surely a person can honestly search for the truth and reject Christianity.

 

[AxisMundi]

A hundred years ago, creationism enjoyed exclusivity in U.S. public schools. Most Christians opposed a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Today, most Christians favor a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Why have Christians changed? ......

This changed simply due to SCOTUS finally enforcing the Establishment Clause and kicking religion out of public school curriculum, where it doesn't belong.

It is in my firmest opinion that this so-called "balanced approach" is not balanced at all, but a rather open attempt to urge Creationism back into public schools, an attempt couched ineffectively in a false claim of "fairness" merely to get religion back into public school curriculum.

It reminds me very strongly of "civil unions", which were introduced by the anti-gay crowd, an attempt to keep legal action to acquire and ensure Equality of Marriage for gays.

There is nothing "fair" in either case.

 

[footprints]

A hundred years ago, creationism enjoyed exclusivity in U.S. public schools. Most Christians opposed a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Today, most Christians favor a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Why have Christians changed?

If Christians who favor a balanced approach today had been transported at birth back to a hundred years ago, most of them would not have favored a balanced approach. This indicates that social evolution, which is a secular factor, has a lot to do with why people believe what they believe. Today, most Christians oppose colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women, but if they had lived hundreds of years ago, it is probable that the majority of them would have endorsed some or all of those things.

So, the century that a person is born in is a secular factor that influences what they believe.

Gender is another secular factor that influences what people believe since women are more likely to become theists than men are.

Geography is another secular factor that influences what believe because it is
well-established that, for example, the percentages of people who become Christians in predominantly Christian countries are much higher than the percentages of people who become Christians in countries that are predominantly non-Christian.

Age is another secular factor that influences what people believe because it is
well-established that elderly people are much less likely to give up their beliefs than younger people are.

I am pretty sure that in the first century, most people who became Christians had been followers of religions other than Judaism. Let's call people who became Christians who had been followers of religions other than Judaism Group A. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for anyone to claim that Group A "were not" honestly searching for the truth when the followed pagan religions, and "were" honestly searching for the truth when they accepted Christianity. Surely a person can honestly search for the truth and reject Christianity.

People believe what they believe, due to the relationship of association they make from the knowledge they contain. What they accept and what they reject to a greater or lesser degree.

Knowledge in itself can point life in many directions. Each direction is pure perfection, to the person who conceives this perception.

Go back a 100 years, and the majority here, irrespective of their current beliefs, would have believed it was okay, to give the wife a good back hander whenever she got out of line, to acknowledge the fact that women just didn't have the intelligence or understanding of the world to enable them to vote, that the place for a women was in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and children should be seen but never heard.

With greater understanding, we learn. With the same knowledge, we keep the status quo.

 

[Agnostic75]

Go back a 100 years, and the majority here, irrespective of their current beliefs, would have believed it was okay, to give the wife a good back hander whenever she got out of line, to acknowledge the fact that women just didn't have the intelligence or understanding of the world to enable them to vote, that the place for a women was in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and children should be seen but never heard.

With greater understanding, we learn. With the same knowledge, we keep the status quo.

Yes, which indicates that secular factors primarily or solely determine what people believe.

 

[footprints]

Yes, which indicates that secular factors primarily or solely determine what people believe.

I would doubt, secular is the right term to use. With greater knowledge also comes greater understanding of the spiritual aspects of life as well. So I would put it like this, which also aligns with scientific knowledge to date;

That the environment primarily and/or solely determines what people believe.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, which indicates that secular factors primarily or solely determine what people believe.

I would doubt secular is the right term to use. With greater knowledge also comes greater understanding of the spiritual aspects of life as well. So I would put it like this, which also aligns with scientific knowledge to date;

That the environment primarily and/or solely determines what people believe.

If you mean an environment that does not include a particular God who exists, and who influences why people believe what they believe, I agree.

It is interesting to note that although the Bible has not changed much for at least the past 1,000 years, many Christian beliefs about various issues have changed a lot.

 

[fallingblood]

A hundred years ago, creationism enjoyed exclusivity in U.S. public schools. Most Christians opposed a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Today, most Christians favor a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would both be taught. Why have Christians changed?

The answer is simple. They didn't want a balanced view back then because they had already had a major control of what was being taught. They wanted what they had already had. Now, they haven't had the control for a long time, and have not had their beliefs taught at all. So they want it back in the school system however possible. There need be no long explanation as it is simple.

I am pretty sure that in the first century, most people who became Christians had been followers of religions other than Judaism. Let's call people who became Christians who had been followers of religions other than Judaism Group A. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for anyone to claim that Group A "were not" honestly searching for the truth when the followed pagan religions, and "were" honestly searching for the truth when they accepted Christianity. Surely a person can honestly search for the truth and reject Christianity.

You'd be surprised at how wrong you could be. During the first century, Christianity had barely even begun forming. It hadn't really even broken off on it's own, and was still under Judaism. Actually, many Jews made up the first Christians. All of Jesus's initial followers were Jews (or at least the vast majority since he had a message for Jews). Even after the death of Jesus, his disciples remained Jews, and Jewish-Christianity was a major factor.

I really do not see where you were going with that paragraph though.

 

[fallingblood]

It is interesting to note that although the Bible has not changed much for at least the past 1,000 years, many Christian beliefs about various issues have changed a lot.

The Bible has undergone some massive changes since the last 1,000 years. It is also worth mentioning that it wasn't until the last 1,000 years that the population was able to actually read the Bible themselves, giving more chances to interpret it. Basically what I'm saying is that your statement is flawed.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is interesting to note that although the Bible has not changed much for at least the past 1,000 years, many Christian beliefs about various issues have changed a lot.

The Bible has undergone some massive changes since the last 1,000 years.

What major changes have been made during the last 1,000 years regarding manuscript copies? Consider the following from a Christian website:

The Bible's Manuscript Evidence

Unlike the Qur'an, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslims contend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliability of the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

Please note "In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD!"

Assuming that the Christian website is correct, 600 A.D. is 1410 years ago.

It is also worth mentioning that it wasn't until the last 1,000 years that the population was able to actually read the Bible themselves, giving more chances to interpret it. Basically what I'm saying is that your statement is flawed.

Surely by 1700 A.D., a good percentage of early American Christians were literate, but many if not most of them endorsed colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. I am not saying that it was their fault. I am saying that a good deal of evidence indicates that secular factors determine what people believe. Since I was seduced by Christianity myself for over 30 years, I understand how easy it is for people to be misled, and I have a good deal of compassion for children who are told and believe false things by their conservative Christian parents. Even the brilliant scientist Issac Newton was seduced by the Bible, and the brilliant Blaise Pascal.

 

[LittleNipper]

This changed simply due to SCOTUS finally enforcing the Establishment Clause and kicking religion out of public school curriculum, where it doesn't belong.

It is in my firmest opinion that this so-called "balanced approach" is not balanced at all, but a rather open attempt to urge Creationism back into public schools, an attempt couched ineffectively in a false claim of "fairness" merely to get religion back into public school curriculum.

It reminds me very strongly of "civil unions", which were introduced by the anti-gay crowd, an attempt to keep legal action to acquire and ensure Equality of Marriage for gays.

There is nothing "fair" in either case.

Equal marriage (under some warped sense of righteousness) for homosexual activity, will never make homosexuality equal with heterosexuality. Evolution does not account for why humanity exists and so humans will never become asexual.

The Federal government has no right in "educating" its citizens. The only thing the the Federal government should do is insist on equal access to tax funded education. But the Federal government should not have made any laws with regard to what consitutes a valid education or what its citizens must be taught, or the government will eventually assume parental rights over the children of the United States. And that would result in 1984 approach to mind control...

 

[fallingblood]

Surely by 1700 A.D., a good percentage of early American Christians were literate, but many if not most of them endorsed colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. I am not saying that it was their fault. I am saying that a good deal of evidence indicates that secular factors determine what people believe. Since I was seduced by Christianity myself for over 30 years, I understand how easy it is for people to be misled, and I have a good deal of compassion for children who are told and believe false things by their conservative Christian parents. Even the brilliant scientist Issac Newton was seduced by the Bible, and the brilliant Blaise Pascal.

You need to actually read about the history of the Bible. Start around 1400 C.E. and see what the Bible goes through. There are additions, subtractions, mistranslations (some on purpose), etc. My point is that the Bible has undergone large amount of change.

Also, Christianity had nothing to do with colonization, slavery, etc. It was a cultural ordeal, not religious. We know this because it was not subject to just the religious. It was the common practice during that time, regardless of religion.

How is accepting Christianity being misled? Can you prove your position is better? You can't. Sure, "secular" factors may determine to a point what we believe; however, you can not prove that is the only thing that determines what we believe. The debate on nurture versus nature has been going on for a long time now. It is more logical to assume both has an effect.

 

[Agnostic75]

Christianity had nothing to do with colonization, slavery, etc.

You actually made a good argument there since many people who supported colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women were not Christians, and some were not religious. So, I retract that claim. I do not mind admitting that I am wrong when I know that I am wrong.

How is accepting Christianity being misled? Can you prove your position is better? You can't. Sure, "secular" factors may determine to a point what we believe; however, you can not prove that is the only thing that determines what we believe. The debate on nurture versus nature has been going on for a long time now. It is more logical to assume both has an effect.

Regarding "nature versus nuture," I am not making a case for naturalism. Like many other agnostics, I believe that it is reasonably possible that some God exists, but not the God of the Bible. Yes, a God could have set up a system where women tend to become theists more than men do, where elderly people are less likely to give up religion than younger people are, where percentages of people who are Christians are typically much higher in countries that are predominantly Christian, and where the century that a person is born in often makes a difference regarding what they believe, but that would be mimicking naturalism since if naturalism is true, those things would not be surprising. I cannot imagine that a loving, merciful God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but frequently mimicks naturalism. My best guess is that naturalism and deism are the best choices. If deism if the best choice, apparently a deistic God mimicks naturalism for unknown reasons.

Do Christians believe that God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it? As far as we know, God has never told anyone about the Gospel message himself. Do Christians believe that God wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it though human effort? As far as we know, God does not directly give food to people himself. If he did, then why have millions of people died of starvation?

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, nature and nurture go hand in hand. Nature does effect what one believes. However, so does nurturing.

If one were to be logical about the idea, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that if a god/s did exist, our major religions worship that god/s, just in different ways. If god/s do exist, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the god of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc are the same being, yet it reveals itself to different individuals in different methods.

I'm an agnostic theist. I do not believe in the God of the Bible per se. I do believe in a god/s, but for personal reason. Knowing the different religions though, I do not see it being illogical to state that they all worship the same being, just in different ways. The simple reason for this is because people are different, and thus need different manners in which to worship. I think the Hindus have gotten this idea the most.

 

[berrychrisc]

I am pretty sure that in the first century, most people who became Christians had been followers of religions other than Judaism. Let's call people who became Christians who had been followers of religions other than Judaism Group A. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for anyone to claim that Group A "were not" honestly searching for the truth when the followed pagan religions, and "were" honestly searching for the truth when they accepted Christianity. Surely a person can honestly search for the truth and reject Christianity.

Absolutely. There is no "one true religion". All religions are just paths that lead to the same place.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, nature and nurture go hand in hand. Nature does effect what one believes. However, so does nurturing.

If one were to be logical about the idea, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that if a god/s did exist, our major religions worship that god/s, just in different ways. If god/s do exist, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the god of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. are the same being, yet it reveals itself to different individuals in different methods.

I'm an agnostic theist. I do not believe in the God of the Bible per se. I do believe in a god/s, but for personal reason. Knowing the different religions though, I do not see it being illogical to state that they all worship the same being, just in different ways. The simple reason for this is because people are different, and thus need different manners in which to worship. I think the Hindus have gotten this idea the most.

Well, maybe we are finally getting somewhere. If so, that would be nice. My main proposition in this thread is that a good deal of evidence indicates that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, maybe we are finally getting somewhere. If so, that would be nice. My main proposition in this thread is that a good deal of evidence indicates that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

You can't prove that though. You can not prove, and there is no evidence that if God exists, it is not the God of the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

Well, maybe we are finally getting somewhere. If so, that would be nice. My main proposition in this thread is that a good deal of evidence indicates that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

You can't prove that though. There is no evidence that if God exists, it is not the God of the Bible.

But the obvious issue is "reaonable proof," not "absolute proof." There is not absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is a human being and not an alien, but most people believe that there is reasonable proof that she is a human being.

Would you say that there is no evidence that a global flood occured? If so, why? If a God exists, he might have caused a global flood to occur, but if he did, he mimicked naturalism by making it appear to skeptic scientists that a global flood did not occur, which is similar to some my previous arguments. Why would a God who wants people to believe that he exists mimic naturalism?

 

[fallingblood]

But the obvious issue is "reaonable proof," not "absolute proof." There is not absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is a human being and not an alien, but most people believe that there is reasonable proof that she is a human being.

Incorrect. There is absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is human. We can prove it by logic, and if you really want, by science.

Would you say that there is no evidence that a global flood occured? If so, why? If a God exists, he might have caused a global flood to occur, but if he did, he mimicked naturalism by making it appear to skeptic scientists that a global flood did not occur, which is similar to some my previous arguments. Why would a God who wants people to believe that he exists mimic naturalism?

How does this support your idea? No, there was no Global flood, it was not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Agnostic75]

But the obvious issue is "reasonable proof," not "absolute proof." There is not absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is a human being and not an alien, but most people believe that there is reasonable proof that she is a human being.

Incorrect. There is absolute proof that Hillary Clinton is human. We can prove it by logic, and if you really want, by science.

Nope, there is not absolute proof that no being in the universe is able to clone a human and put his own consciousness into a human body.

Would you say that there is no evidence that a global flood occured? If so, why? If a God exists, he might have caused a global flood to occur, but if he did, he mimicked naturalism by making it appear to skeptic scientists that a global flood did not occur, which is similar to some my previous arguments. Why would a God who wants people to believe that he exists mimic naturalism?

How does this support your idea? No, there was no global flood, it was not meant to be taken literally.

My implication was that you are not able to provide absolute proof that a global flood did not occur. Why wouldn't a God be able to cause a global flood to occur and cover up the evidence if he wanted to? As I said, "the obvious issue is 'reaonable proof,' not 'absolute proof.'"

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, nature and nurture go hand in hand. Nature does effect what one believes. However, so does nurturing.

How do you define "nurturing"? If you are implying that a God exists, I never said otherwise. I have said in this thread that if a God exists, he frequently mimicks the way that things would be if the universe was naturalistic, which would be quite strange for a God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists.