Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[George-ananda]

What we reject is belief without sufficient evidence as that has a tendency to lead to irrational decisions in other matters, matters that might have consequences for us.

We actually agree on that philosophy. But on some paranormal/spiritual issues we can have a respectful disagreement on if 'sufficient evidence' is there or not.

 

[George-ananda]

Well I will obviously be accepting of whatever happens when I die (77 now), if such is a possibility, given I have no preconceptions of anything happening apart from my life ending. But whatever beliefs I might have, these aren't driven by anything in particular, and just formed through what I have gathered over my life. Fortunately they haven't needed any severe reversals but mostly have been trimmed or pruned. Hence why I have still so much scepticism for many things accepted by others. Given I don't believe numbers count so much in many of these things.

That's all reasonable but perhaps where I differ is in giving more weight to the experiences of so many others. It seems reasonable to believe they are just as competent (and some more so) than me. So, I consider what they experience in my overall understanding of reality. This has led me to believe in a deeper than the surface universe.

 

[Heyo]

We actually agree on that philosophy. But on some paranormal/spiritual issues we can have a respectful disagreement on if 'sufficient evidence' is there or not.

I can have a respectful disagreement with parapsychologists. They are more on the side of (misunderstood) science than most of the other groups I mentioned. But when the environment already is hostile, giving in just makes them go

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's all reasonable but perhaps where I differ is in giving more weight to the experiences of so many others. It seems reasonable to believe they are just as competent (and so more so) than me. So, I consider what they experience in my overall understanding of reality. This has led me to believe in a deeper than the surface universe.

For me it simply amounts to how much knowledge anyone can have. I am no scientist but I have been a mechanical engineer, so I do have an inkling as to what is required to be a scientist and as to what they are likely to be doing with their time. Hence I am more swayed by the general opinion of most scientists unless there is room for doubt than for anything coming from untrained persons - and in this latter regard numbers don't mean much. Given that we all so often interpret events as we see them before analysing any to find the actual truth of these.

 

[George-ananda]

I can have a respectful disagreement with parapsychologists. They are more on the side of (misunderstood) science than most of the other groups I mentioned. But when the environment already is hostile, giving in just makes them go

To me it's not about fueling one side or the other I actually want to know about the nature of reality as honestly as I can understand it.

 

[George-ananda]

For me it simply amounts to how much knowledge anyone can have. I am no scientist but I have been a mechanical engineer, so I do have an inkling as to what is required to be a scientist and as to what they are likely to be doing with their time. Hence I am more swayed by the general opinion of most scientists unless there is room for doubt than for anything coming from untrained persons - and in this latter regard numbers don't mean much. Given that we all so often interpret events as we see them before analysing any to find the actual truth of these.

As far as scientists go, there are very few who have immersed themselves deeply in claims of the paranormal. And among those I would think believers are the majority. On the surface I can understand why scientists like a 'nice logical behaving' universe they can explain and will start from that position and usually go no deeper.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As far as scientists go, there are very few who have immersed themselves deeply in claims of the paranormal. And among those I would think believers are the majority. On the surface I can understand why scientists like a 'nice logical behaving' universe they can explain and will start from that position and usually go no deeper.

You can look at them that way I suppose, and most scientists would no doubt be likely to be more analytical than intuitive, but also they will have the necessary scepticism so as not to accept appearances. Perhaps it looks as if the scientific community just closes ranks but in essence it is simply respect for the work of others. Given there isn't much if any scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena what are they (and we who respect their work) expected to do?

 

[George-ananda]

You can look at them that way I suppose, and most scientists would no doubt be likely to be more analytical than intuitive, but also they will have the necessary scepticism so as not to accept appearances. Perhaps it looks as if the scientific community just closes ranks but in essence it is simply respect for the work of others. Given there isn't much if any scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena what are they (and we who respect their work) expected to do?

Then we as individuals, if we are deeply interested in the subject (and very few go deep), have to do our own homework on the evidence and form our best conclusion. That's all I did.

 

[Alien826]

Evidence is evidence to me and I'm not the one who says that the evidence for God or the Bible is not real evidence. Skeptics who say they are critical thinkers, empiricists, those into scientism, say that the evidence for God and the Bible is not even evidence.
I just say that it is different in nature. Different disciplines, topics, have different types of evidence.
So science was not designed to study God or the evidence for God, which nevertheless is real evidence, and so it must be just a different sort of evidence.

You're not addressing my question.

Why should different "disciplines" have different types of evidence? I mean categorically different, not different based on the methods employed. Do you approach a claim that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden differently from a religious claim? I know you do treat them differently! What is the different nature of religious claims compared to every other claim we encounter?

Maybe another question would help. What are you trying to determine when examining the evidence, whatever it may be? Surely your objective is to establish what is true, not just to shore up a belief that you are emotionally attached to? (Note, I'm not accusing you of that). So, how do you recognize when something is true as opposed to false? I would suggest that the test we all use is how does it relate to what we know? Does it make sense when compared to the world as we perceive it?

Now, why would evaluating religious claims have a different objective from determining what is true and a different method from comparing them to already known facts?

Just to make it plain, I'm not questioning your conclusions, just your claimed "different evidence" and so on.

 

[Heyo]

Then we as individuals, if we are deeply interested in the subject (and very few go deep), have to do our own homework on the evidence and form our best conclusion. That's all I did.

It's been quite a while but I did look into the evidence also, though there isn't much (or wasn't when I was looking). Basically the only ones who really did research were the guys at Duke and later Rhine Research. You might want to add Sheldrake but he hasn't done real experiments in parapsychology.
Do you have some resent papers you can link to that might have slipped my attention?

 

[George-ananda]

It's been quite a while but I did look into the evidence also, though there isn't much (or wasn't when I was looking). Basically the only ones who really did research were the guys at Duke and later Rhine Research. You might want to add Sheldrake but he hasn't done real experiments in parapsychology.
Do you have some resent papers you can link to that might have slipped my attention?

Well you’re sticking there to scientific experiments it sounds like which is fine but I also consider anecdotal, investigative, the claims of those with alleged psychic/clairvoyant perception, and wisdom traditions (Vedic/Hindu, Theosophical).

And ‘consider’ means neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal.

From all that I feel I have converged on a solid basic understanding of the unseen dimensions to reality.

But it took a lot of time and thought.

 

[Heyo]

Well you’re sticking there to scientific experiments it sounds like which is fine but I also consider anecdotal, investigative, the claims of those with alleged psychic/clairvoyant perception, and wisdom traditions (Vedic/Hindu, Theosophical).

And ‘consider’ means neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal.

From all that I feel I have converged on a solid basic understanding of the unseen dimensions to reality.

But it took a lot of time and thought.

I wouldn't cite them because I don't consider them to be evidence but I had my anecdotal experiences, also. Needles to say that non of them turned out to be convincing. My believing friends say that I have such a strong skeptical aura that all paranormal activity ceases in my presence. I don't fear ghosts - ghosts fear me.

 

[George-ananda]

I wouldn't cite them because I don't consider them to be evidence but I had my anecdotal experiences, also. Needles to say that non of them turned out to be convincing. My believing friends say that I have such a strong skeptical aura that all paranormal activity ceases in my presence. I don't fear ghosts - ghosts fear me.

Ok, but for me, other people's experiences are important for me to consider too. My goal is the best understanding of reality that I can have.

 

[Heyo]

Ok, but for me, other people's experiences are important for me to consider too. My goal is the best understanding of reality that I can have.

I don't think you'll get to that goal following unreliable sources.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think you'll get to that goal following unreliable sources.

Not sure the sources should be simply judged 'unreliable'? The majority of people I feel are 'reliable' and a minority 'unreliable'.

 

[Heyo]

Not sure the sources should be simply judged 'unreliable'? The majority of people I feel are 'reliable' and a minority 'unreliable'.

I have a pretty good memory and I know that it isn't reliable. The scientific method has checks against biases and misinterpretations build in (and on rare occasions even those fail).

 

[Soandso]

I was not referring to the brain in a vat argument, I was referring to whether the reality we are taught to accept these days is completely right. The following might give you an idea of what I am referring to, even if I don't necessarily agree with any conclusions Rupert Sheldrake might come to.

Ahh I see. I watched about 10 mins of the video, and I can see why ted talk decided not to air this guy's lecture

That said, I guarantee you that what we see of the world is an incomplete picture, and the scientific community is wrong about some things that they are unaware of right now. This is just the nature of collective knowledge and the flaws that human beings, the scientists themselves, innately have

What we know now is a clearer picture of what we knew 100 years ago, and what we knew then was clearer still than what we knew 100 years before that. This is self evident in the advancements we have made year after year. The proof is in the pudding, and science demonstrates it's value on a consistent basis

It seems imperative to allow our beliefs to be bent by better evidence.

Speaking for myself, yes, but I would never force my personal standards onto others

Sounds like you want a religion that is varified by science. Many seem to end up with deism when they want that, but science does not even varify Deism, it is just that science does not seem to take exception to Deism. But do you think that a religion needs to be subservient to what the current science paradigm says or can science be wrong about the nature of reality and not open minded in it's ways?

I've dabbled in deism in the past, but at the end of the day it wasn't for me

Science by it's very nature requires open minds for it to work properly, but don't mistake open mindedness with entertaining baseless assertions

Religions can teach whatever they like to their congregations. If the ideas they teach presuppose certain assumptions on the material nature of reality that, through science, we can show to be false (such as the earth being only 6,000 years old), those claims aren't going to be taken seriously by and large

I think it is too late to want all religions to agree on their spiritual realities. You just have to accept things the way they are and choose, or not. If you want them all to agree then are you saying that you have made up your mind that none are correct, all are wrong and there is no spiritual reality?

They never agreed to begin with, and even when one religion can agree on a standard train of thought, over time splits happen when differences of opinion and interpretation form and new sects and denominations form. Christianity, for instance, started as one idea. Over time the splits happened and even whole new religions formed from those splits. This is what happens when ideas aren't rooted in anything substantial, imo

What my point is is that claims on things such as spirituality, which supposedly describe a nature of reality, don't impress me when they can't deliver varifiable and repeatable results. That doesn't mean that I've made my mind up on anything. I'm just waiting for substantial evidence before I jump to any conclusions on the viability of it's existence. Until then, I have to default to what we can actually observe - the natural world

In this age of historians presuming any supernatural story is not true and presuming prophecy was written after the events, and archaeologists refusing to see evidence for the truth of the Bible as showing that, anyone could be excused for treating the Bible like any other sagas.

Why should anyone presuppose any supernatural story to be true - especially for people who's life work is to, in the least biased way possible, get to the core of the truth? What makes the bible any more true or special than any other supernatural claims that other holy books make?

Supernatural presuppositions don't seem to get very far in the scientific world because they don't follow the evidence where it leads. Instead they only play defense and serve to try and find evidence to prove the presupposotions true despite evidence to the contrary

I find prophecy compelling but I haven't any reason to say that it was written after the events.

This is the second time you've mentioned this. That's not my argument

What I will say, though, is that there are some prophecies that christians fulfilled after they had the political power to make them happen, such as the reformation of israel as a nation. That never would have happened except that christians ruled the world at that point in time and put it into action. It never would have happened if christians didn't intervene and make it happen

 

[Brian2]

So why do either? There is no need to take such a leap.

I remain open. If I die and find there is no God then I will change my view, and I'm sure you also have a similar approach.

Perhaps, but not by the rules of reason. You are using your own rules to connect them which include logical fallacies. A leap of faith is called a non sequitur fallacy.

So I have made a non sequitur fallacy because I believe what the evidence does not absolutely prove to be the case.

Many of those educated guesses have tested and confirmed. Some are still in development, like abiogenesis.


Do you mean like the naturalistic answers that took man to the moon and back? Do you think they could be wrong? The greatest evidence for the validity of science's fundamental assumptions is its stellar success. Do you know which competing ideas have had no success? The ones based in faith - alchemy, astrology, and more recently, the ID program. None produced any useful ideas, which is evidence that they are founded on false assumptions.

No I'm not talking about the science that got man to the moon and back. You know I am talking about the science

I don't call guesses answers. If your answer doesn't derive from empiricism, it's a guess, and if it's an unfalsifiable guess, it can't be called either right or wrong.

Some answers that derive from empiricism are educated guesses based on wrong presumptions.

Not according to archeology.

The Biblical time for the conquest is from 1400BC. Evidence shows the Book of Joshua to be accurate for this time period. That is archaeology, the evidence is there and is not made up.

 

[Brian2]

I think it is more about whether you accept some writing from the past as being evidence of some God rather than being evidence of writing existing then, and of attitudes at the time. You seem to accept such when many will not do so. Evidence is evidence when you want to pick and choose rather than sift for accuracy or believability perhaps.

Maybe it is just that what you call "believable" is not what I call believable.

 

[Brian2]

Whyshould different "disciplines" have different types of evidence? I mean categorically different, not different based on the methods employed. Do you approach a claim that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden differently from a religious claim? I know you do treat them differently! What is the different nature of religious claims compared to every other claim we encounter?
Maybe another question would help. What are you trying to determine when examining the evidence, whatever it may be? Surely your objective is to establish what is true, not just to shore up a belief that you are emotionally attached to? (Note, I'm not accusing you of that). So, how do you recognize when something is true as opposed to false? I would suggest that the test we all use is how does it relate to what we know? Does it make sense when compared to the world as we perceive it?

Now, why would evaluating religious claims have a different objective from determining what is true and a different method from comparing them to already known facts?

Just to make it plain, I'm not questioning your conclusions, just your claimed "different evidence" and so on.

A religious claim is usually about events in the past and so history comes into it.
A religious claim is usually about the existence of not of scientifically undetectable things.
Science cannot say yay or nay to the existence of God/s or spiritual realm etc
Science should not automatically presume that historical claims of supernatural activity are not accurate.
If science or historians want to say that they know the supernatural is unreal then they are going beyond what science or history can tell us.
That said, I admit that I have a belief, and when examining claims that claim to show it to be false, I am looking to see whether those claims actually do that. But I am not really shoring up my belief (as you put it), I'm looking to see if the evidence/claim has actually don't any damage to the belief, iow if the claims are true.