Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Audie]

An explanation would address the "how."
The "why" part is just part of the unsubstantiated story.

If the sun "stood" still and the "moon stopped", earth would be in a ton of trouble, by the way. I'm sure you'll just explain that away with more magic.

Where do we see the laws of physics being suspended "these days?"
Stories in old books aren't evidence of such things happening. They are claims.

Believers will believe anything as long
as it's impossible.

 

[icehorse]

Why get some people joy from physical activity while others like to stay on the couch?
Why have some kids problems with the Marshmallow test while others don't?

My guess is that i goes down to the internal reward system. If your brain rewards itself when you have successfully solved a puzzle, you are more likely to seek other puzzles - instead of going for a run like the one who gets a runners high.
I expect a part of that to be innate but also that brain plasticity allows for education to work on those reward systems by triggering one reward with another. When you get affection for problem solving, after a while problem solving will be its own reward, even without external reinforcement. And it may be important if you get rewarded for correct answers instead of fast answers.

and

Thermodynamics: we think whatever is easiest to think. Our brains require a lot of energy, however we are adapted to conserve energy rather than to use it recklessly thinking about all kinds of intensive topics. We might need it for running or for building up fat. Therefore after a certain amount of thought without generous reward for that thought our brains turn against thinking by means of: distractions, depressions, manias, sleepiness, anxieties and so on.

I agree that neuroscience and motivation science are strong influencers of "belief".

There is indeed a tension in the brain between conserving glucose, and using glucose to experience situations that get us into the FLOW state. (We've got chemicals in the brain whose job it is to IMPEDE the creation of long term memories, because creating long term memories is a glucose-intensive activity.)

And yes Heyo, INTRINSIC motivation is the strongest / best type of motivation on the motivation hierarchy.

In terms of the old nature vs nurture debate, I think nurture plays a HUGE role in how a person develops cognitively. When I was a kid, my Mom took me to the library every week, thanks Mom!! I've talked to a lot of people about this and I know I was extremely fortunate in this regard. At an early age I learned how much fun learning / reading / discovery could be.

We're on the religious forums, so of course I have to bring this up. While many religious people had the sort of library-enhanced good fortune that I had, it's also the case that MANY kids brought up in religious homes were indoctrinated with religion, and often this indoctrination suppresses exploration and creative thinking. There are a lot of people who have primarily been exposed to one book in their lives!!! Yikes!

You can guess where this rant is going: It's easier for the indoctrinated to believe than for those who were taught to explore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

You can guess where this rant is going: It's easier for the indoctrinated to believe than for those who were taught to explore.

Yeah, but you can also be taught to explore and try to find something that is not there.
In general philosophy as as for the idea of knowledge is sometimes about try to find something that is not there. As far as I can tell then there is nothing like e.g. the truth as even some non-believers use.
So your model is okay, but need amendment as if it is just believe versus explore.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but you can also be taught to explore and try to find something that is not there.
In general philosophy as as for the idea of knowledge is sometimes about try to find something that is not there. As far as I can tell then there is nothing like e.g. the truth as even some non-believers use.
So your model is okay, but need amendment as if it is just believe versus explore.

Can we say "find something that is not there", could take many forms? I would argue that story telling is good. I would argue that coming to believe in your own stories / fabrications is usually bad.

As for claiming to have "the truth", I think believers are far more guilty of that than non-believers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can we say "find something that is not there", could take many forms? I would argue that story telling is good. I would argue that coming to believe in your own stories / fabrications is usually bad.

As for claiming to have "the truth", I think believers are far more guilty of that than non-believers.

Well, we have at least 2 non-believers who do that on this forum. It is not the numbers that matter. It is the black and white idea of science versus everything else.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, we have at least 2 non-believers who do that on this forum. It is not the numbers that matter. It is the black and white idea of science versus everything else.

Science vs everything else.
There is nothing else.

 

[icehorse]

Well, we have at least 2 non-believers who do that on this forum. It is not the numbers that matter. It is the black and white idea of science versus everything else.

"Outliers" exist in almost any significant statistical sample you can name. We don't want the outliers to confuse us.

That said, from a philosophical perspective, I think we all have to "believe" a few things that we cannot prove in order to get along in the world. For me, I "believe" that things like logic and critical thinking are essential tools if we're to survive. I admit I'm imperfect in implementing these ideas, and I admit that I cannot prove their essential-ness. But at least I'm honest about those two points.

 

[Brian2]

An explanation would address the "how."
The "why" part is just part of the unsubstantiated story.

If the sun "stood" still and the "moon stopped", earth would be in a ton of trouble, by the way. I'm sure you'll just explain that away with more magic.

I don't know the how and nobody who believes it knows the how and those who don't believe it deny that any "how" is possible because thy don't believe in a God who can do magic.

Where do we see the laws of physics being suspended "these days?"
Stories in old books aren't evidence of such things happening. They are claims.

I hear of miracles happening these days in communities of faith where these things happen and are seen and recognised.

 

[Jimmy]

Why do people believe any scam?
Wanting to believe is part of it.
But mostly it's childish gullibility.

Gods not a scam.

 

[Soandso]

Gods not a scam.

Well... Sometimes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Outliers" exist in almost any significant statistical sample you can name. We don't want the outliers to confuse us.

That said, from a philosophical perspective, I think we all have to "believe" a few things that we cannot prove in order to get along in the world. For me, I "believe" that things like logic and critical thinking are essential tools if we're to survive. I admit I'm imperfect in implementing these ideas, and I admit that I cannot prove their essential-ness. But at least I'm honest about those two points.

Also at @Nakosis
For the bold. How is that true? How do you know that? How come you use confuse, which implies emotion? Who is that we and who are they, if it is not an universal we?

Now what just happened? Well, I asked critical questions about the bold as to how it is known and not just makes sense.

 

[Audie]

Gods not a scam.

Oh? How exactly do you know
that? Do you mean "god" or religion?

Point of word usage. "God" can't be a scam.

Religions are where the scams are.

They all promise the sky but have never been
known to deliver.
All the charactdristics of a typical scam are there.

If even one is true that leaves all the rest as
scams.

How is religion not a scam?

 

[Audie]

Well... Sometimes

Like when?

 

[Soandso]

Like when?

Ah, to clarify I was referring to "promises of god." To be clear, I don't think all religions or institutes of faith run actual scam operations, but the picture I posted certainly shows one that does

 

[Audie]

Ah, to clarify I was referring to "promises of god." To be clear, I don't think all religions or institutes of faith run actual scam operations, but the picture I posted certainly shows one that does

Actual?
Or is it a matter of degree /:subtlety.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know the how and nobody who believes it knows the how and those who don't believe it deny that any "how" is possible because thy don't believe in a God who can do magic.

And that's why it's not actually an explanation - it provides zero explanatory power to say "God did it." In other words, it tells us nothing.

I hear of miracles happening these days in communities of faith where these things happen and are seen and recognised.

Unsubstantiated rumours are the best you've got? That's not very convincing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actual?
Or is it a matter of degree /:subtlety.

Evidence as per objective evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And that's why it's not actually an explanation - it provides zero explanatory power to say "God did it." In other words, it tells us nothing.

What do you want it to "tell you" .. how G-d creates and maintains the universe?
Is it that you want to be G-d?

 

[icehorse]

Also at @Nakosis
For the bold. How is that true? How do you know that? How come you use confuse, which implies emotion? Who is that we and who are they, if it is not an universal we?

Now what just happened? Well, I asked critical questions about the bold as to how it is known and not just makes sense.

The "we" is whoever is thinking about a situation and trying to make sense of it. "We" are the people (you, me and others), who are participating in this discussion. Usually in discussions like this "we" are trying to find some patterns in how people think or behave. The patterns we're discussing almost ALWAYS have exceptions (I called them "outliers" earlier). But we use patterns in many aspects of life, and we've learned to put some trust in patterns, even though they don't perfectly capture 100% of the events or beliefs that might happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What do you want it to "tell you" .. how G-d creates and maintains the universe?
Is it that you want to be G-d?

As I told the other poster, the "HOW" is the actual explanatory part.