Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Heyo]

Turns around and walks away, shoulders slumped down and despondent. He can be heard to mumble "Why don't people want to believe me?"

Most people over the age of five require some evidence if a story doesn't come from a trusted news source. Especially when it's coming from "some guy on the interwebs".
But there is also a not so small minority who will believe anything if it is fantastically enough. Reptilians in disguise, ancient aliens, penis enlargement pills or the Nigerian Prince who needs your help. And those stories often come with some (fake) evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

Looking back, I now wonder if a large component of my behavior was a dislike of being told what to do at all. I still have that. Can that have been a significant cause of my doubting nature?

Yes

 

[Nakosis]

Yet another post by a member asking whether they believe so-and-so (and of course admitting that they do) led me to ask myself why is it I find it so difficult to believe claims without evidence, while others appear to accept almost any claim absolutely uncritically.

I'm old enough to have been exposed to all the strange stuff: spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, religion (of every kind), conspiracy theories, Elvis-lives, auras, astral travel, psychokenesis, ESP, parapsychology, alien abductions (usually with penetrating body probes!), yeti and sasquatch and chupacabra, Edgar Cayce, resurrections (of Christ and many others), YEC, -- oh, my this list could go on forever. Humans have believed (and do believe) so many strange things.

But what I've noticed is this: there seemn to be people (like me, and other skeptics and critical thinkers in the Forum) who find it difficult to near-impossible to believe strange claims for which we see no real evidence ---- but there are others who seem predisposed, almost programmed, to believe almost anything at all, no matter how unlikely.

Michael Shermer wrote a book called "Why Do People Believe Weird Things" and it got a pretty good reception -- but only from the usual skeptical thinkers. The "Woo" crowd hated it.

Why is it, do you think, that some people are willing to believe pretty much anything, while others hold out for evidence?

As a kid, I was willing to believe anything because I didn't know anything.
The more I learned the more I was able to question what people claimed.

Also, some claims made me feel positive, hopeful, happy. Provided some sense of security. So I think I wanted to believe for these benefits.

I was bound by my desire for these things to be true. I think Buddhism taught the idea of letting go of these desires. Desires have control over you and I always wanted to be in control. Not my desires. The need for positive, hopeful, happy endings was one of the desires I let go of.

Once I let go I found there was nothing (no evidence ) supporting these beliefs so letting go of these beliefs soon followed.

Many people can't separate themselves from their desires. They are their desires. You cannot tell them otherwise. Of course I fought against the control of my desires at an early age. Maybe it is a personality trait a person is sometimes born with.

 

[Brian2]

Too many things are wrong with it. For starters, here are just 2:

Where was this "there" that God was always at? You see, if God created the heavens and the earth (that is, the universe) what can it possibly mean to say he was lurking somewhere else?

I could say that the universe expanded in God. I could say that God is of a different nature to us. God is love and love does not need space.
The whole idea of timelessness and spacelessness is a bit beyond us humans however imo even if science has the concept of a singularity.

To say that "God has always been there" includes the explicit notion of time. Now, if God created the universe some finite time ago, and yet God exists infinitely in time, then because an infinity minus a finite quantity leaves an infinity, then that means that God existed for an infinite amount of time doing precisely nothing.

We have the disadvantage of language when talking about such things. Language can confuse the issue.
We also have a disadvantage of not really knowing what time is.
If God does not change, is that God living in timelessness?
If God has no reason to do anything but be who, what, He is, is that living in timelessness?

But the most important thing is this: theists who believe that the universe had to be created, because "nothing can come from nothing," need to then invent something that can indeed come from nothing -- i.e. be uncaused -- to do the job. That is to say, they invent what they claim to be impossible to explain the impossible. This is simply bizarre.

We do say that the universe needed a beginning, and that has been shown to be true.
That the stuff of the universe needed a beginning is probably a bit harder.
But the stuff of the universe does not seem to be something that can just be, without change, without time.
IMO time cannot have gone into infinity in the past or we would not be here yet, but God, as a changeless being can live changelessly (change being needed for time to exist imo).
When the Bible says, "In the beginning" (Gen 1:1, John 1:1) it really does mean the beginning in the sense that time began then, when God began creating.

 

[Brian2]

Right now it's sitting at 100% in the absence of anything else that can stand up to the rigors of falsifiable testing. That can change if something else concrete were presented, such as a good case for an intelligent designer and life giver

Until then though, if everything is natural, and everything natural forms naturally, where does the supernatural part fit in?

God created the universe with it's potential to become, in the right environment.
God created the environment of earth and the right environment for the changes that God ordained to take place.
God gave us our consciousness and ability to live in a body and be aware.
God gave us our ability to love and hate and think and communicate and create.
Trying to look back in time and see a pathway that could have happened for the universe to end up like this naturally, does not mean that speculated pathway is how things happened and does not mean that God was not needed for this earth and the universe to be set up to cater to life, and to direct and allow the natural pathway to go in a certain direction.
All we have in the science of looking into the past is "It could have happened naturally in the right environments and by chance if we are given the materials of the universe and the natural laws as a given,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so it must have happened that way."
But it is not science that says that. Science shrugs it's collective shoulders and says "We don't know".
We do have science speculating on how things might have happened and with that, many people ignore what God is said to have told us about what He did in the whole process and believe that it all just happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God created the universe with it's potential to become, in the right environment.
God created the environment of earth and the right environment for the changes that God ordained to take place.
God gave us our consciousness and ability to live in a body and be aware.
God gave us our ability to love and hate and think and communicate and create.
Trying to look back in time and see a pathway that could have happened for the universe to end up like this naturally, does not mean that speculated pathway is how things happened and does not mean that God was not needed for this earth and the universe to be set up to cater to life, and to direct and allow the natural pathway to go in a certain direction.
All we have in the science of looking into the past is "It could have happened naturally in the right environments and by chance if we are given the materials of the universe and the natural laws as a given,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so it must have happened that way."
But it is not science that says that. Science shrugs it's collective shoulders and says "We don't know".
We do have science speculating on how things might have happened and with that, many people ignore what God is said to have told us about what He did in the whole process.

No, you are referencing the wrong God. My God is the Correct One and you are Objectively Wrong. And I have Proof of that.

 

[Brian2]

No, you are referencing the wrong God. My God is the Correct One and you are Objectively Wrong. And I have Proof of that.

What did your God do?
If you have proof then I suppose your belief is not a religious belief.
OK so what proof?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What did your God do?
If you have proof then I suppose your belief is not a religious belief.
OK so what proof?

The proof is that She speaks to me.

 

[Soandso]

Okay, we do it differently. But I am general skeptic and thus can doubt if the universe is real and thus get the result that it is unknown if there is a creator god.

That's fair

Doubt is kinna a funny thing. It's good to doubt and to test things that are even well established as we might learn something new. Speaking for myself as an uneducated schmuck, I don't see the value in doubting reality even though I know it is a huge topic that men a lot smarter and more educated than myself have parsed over for thousands of years, if not more

If the avaerage joe schmo doubts things on a consistent basis, even with well established things, what's to stop them from going off the deep end and doubting the shape of the earth, gravity, and turning into just another conspiracy nut or a flat earther?

 

[Soandso]

Psychology is a social science.

Yes, but tacking "social" on the front doesn't make it any less scientific, otherwise other social sciences like anthropology or economics would have to be dismissed as well

There are no laws of science or nature which can predict human behaviour with even a fraction of the accuracy with which Newton’s Laws of Motion, for example, can predict the behaviour of objects.

True, but I'm not sure why you are comparing physics to psychology. One is the set of rules all existence relies on, the other is the study of thinking being that exploits the rules all existence relies on to varying degrees of success. Apples and oranges

So it’s important to acknowledge the distinction between the natural and social sciences, and to make the observation that Karl Popper had psychology specifically in mind, when formulating the doctrine of falsifiability as a means of demarcation.

Never heard of the guy. I'm just an average schmuck. Did you have something specific of his you wanted me to glance over?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's fair

Doubt is kinna a funny thing. It's good to doubt and to test things that are even well established as we might learn something new. Speaking for myself as an uneducated schmuck, I don't see the value in doubting reality even though I know it is a huge topic that men a lot smarter and more educated than myself have parsed over for thousands of years, if not more

If the avaerage joe schmo doubts things on a consistent basis, even with well established things, what's to stop them from going off the deep end and doubting the shape of the earth, gravity, and turning into just another conspiracy nut or a flat earther?

Well, that is fair, but the trick about doubt is even at play here.

Person 1: I know that the world is natural.
Person 2: I know that the world is from God.

As a skeptic, I can show that both are not knowledge and yet those 2 persons and I are in practice all parts of the world.

And here it is for what then can happen. I know what the world is and everybody have to think like me or they are "something negative".

 

[Colt]

"The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory!" UB 1955

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but tacking "social" on the front doesn't make it any less scientific, otherwise other social sciences like anthropology or economics would have to be dismissed as well



True, but I'm not sure why you are comparing physics to psychology. One is the set of rules all existence relies on, the other is the study of thinking being that exploits the rules all existence relies on to varying degrees of success. Apples and oranges



Never heard of the guy. I'm just an average schmuck. Did you have something specific of his you wanted me to glance over?

Yeah ,the first one is always objective, the other one is often subjective. So that is the main difference.

 

[Soandso]

Errrrm, Neither Newton or Archimedes invented math.

Do you happen to know who did? Does that make them the master when we have expanded our knowledge to the point we have today? Just because our early ancestors created fire doesn't mean they are any more of a master of fire than a rocket scientist

I fail to see your point, though. Maybe you could explain a little

 

[Soandso]

Well, that is fair, but the trick about doubt is even at play here.

Person 1: I know that the world is natural.
Person 2: I know that the world is from God.

As a skeptic, I can show that both are not knowledge and yet those 2 persons and I are in practice all parts of the world.

And here it is for what then can happen. I know what the world is and everybody have to think like me or they are "something negative".

Winner frubal

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Winner frubal

Thanks.
Now I had to learn that, because I am a high functioning crazy person. I had to figure out how a part of my brain functions as crazy AND learn when normal people didn't tell the objective truth, but rather did in effect this: "I am normal and thus you have to be like me".

 

[Colt]

Do you happen to know who did? Does that make them the master when we have expanded our knowledge to the point we have today? Just because our early ancestors created fire doesn't mean they are any more of a master of fire than a rocket scientist

I fail to see your point, though. Maybe you could explain a little

God is the master mathematician.

"Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged." UB 1955

 

[Soandso]

God created the universe with it's potential to become, in the right environment.
God created the environment of earth and the right environment for the changes that God ordained to take place.
God gave us our consciousness and ability to live in a body and be aware.
God gave us our ability to love and hate and think and communicate and create.
Trying to look back in time and see a pathway that could have happened for the universe to end up like this naturally, does not mean that speculated pathway is how things happened and does not mean that God was not needed for this earth and the universe to be set up to cater to life, and to direct and allow the natural pathway to go in a certain direction.
All we have in the science of looking into the past is "It could have happened naturally in the right environments and by chance if we are given the materials of the universe and the natural laws as a given,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so it must have happened that way."
But it is not science that says that. Science shrugs it's collective shoulders and says "We don't know".
We do have science speculating on how things might have happened and with that, many people ignore what God is said to have told us about what He did in the whole process and believe that it all just happened.

If you say so, though what you speak on are not my beliefs

There's no shame in not knowing something. It's an opportunity to learn something new, imo. Speaking for myself, what I want is concrete truth, even if the truth leads us to the dead end of our own ignorance. I would rather have an incomplete truth with room to grow than a complete answer with nothing substantial supporting it

 

[Soandso]

God is the master mathematician.

"Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged." UB 1955

So you say

All I've seen from you are constant assertions, though. Do you have anything substantial supporting them?

 

[Audie]

Most people over the age of five require some evidence if a story doesn't come from a trusted news source. Especially when it's coming from "some guy on the interwebs".
But there is also a not so small minority who will believe anything if it is fantastically enough. Reptilians in disguise, ancient aliens, penis enlargement pills or the Nigerian Prince who needs your help. And those stories often come with some (fake) evidence.

And more insidious scams do contain​

some factual details.​