Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Audie]

So you say

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

As if

 

[Colt]

So you say

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

I assume the audience has a little common sense. Alls I get from you is that if it can't be proven in a lab setting then it doesn't exist.

 

[Brian2]

The proof is that She speaks to me.

I have that "proof" also, but I do not count it as proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Okay, here is a simple version. Treat truth as how it works. Then explain all of everything as how it works as same, similar and/or different for everything, something, something else and/or nothing in as many irreducible senses*, for which you need to do that. Senses* means different experiences of how to make sense of you and the rest of everything.
If you want the fancy jargon words for that, you can ask. but you really don't need those words. You just need to learn to check how it works in practice and how many different versions there is of that.

 

[Brian2]

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

You say you do not know but have already made up your mind that it was not God it seems.
You say that science is substantial it seems, when even science cannot say it was not God.
You say that the Bible is not substantial it seems, and that would be because skeptics doubt that it happened because skeptics seem to want scientific evidence for God, but having no evidence is good enough when it comes to saying that God had nothing to do with it.
It seems to be the type of evidence that you have which is important to you and not whether it does or even can answer the questions.
Science answers how things work and speculates on how things came to be.
And science will never know how things came to be (just speculate) but that does not matter to you, sensibly, but not so sensibly you cross God off the list of potential answers unless God shows Himself to you through the scientific method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I assume the audience has a little common sense. Alls I get from you is that if it can't be proven in a lab setting then it doesn't exist.

I don't need a lab. I can do in the everyday world. You can have a live as you and I can have it differently, when we hit the individual parts of the world. That is how simple it is. I just check if I can make sense of it differently than you and then I do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You say you do not know but have already made up your mind that it was not God it seems.
You say that science is substantial it seems, when even science cannot say it was not God.
You say that the Bible is not substantial it seems, and that would be because skeptics doubt that it happened because skeptics seem to want scientific evidence for God, but having no evidence is good enough when it comes to saying that God had nothing to do with it.
It seems to be the type of evidence that you have which is important to you and not whether it does or even can answer the questions.
Science answers how things work and speculates on how things came to be.
And science will never know how things came to be (just speculate) but that does not matter to you, sensibly, but not so sensibly you cross God off the list of potential answers unless God shows Himself to you through the scientific method.

The problem with that is that I can do God differently than you. So you have your God as to you and I have a different God as to me. What comes next?

 

[Colt]

I don't need a lab. I can do in the everyday world. You can have a live as you and I can have it differently, when we hit the individual parts of the world. That is how simple it is. I just check if I can make sense of it differently than you and then I do that.

Nonconformists are all alike.

 

[MikeF]

You say that science is substantial it seems, when even science cannot say it was not God.

You are mistaken here. Science does say exactly that, that it was not "God" that created the Universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nonconformists are all alike.

Yeah, we are still in the world as different, unless you can prove as independent of how you think that we are not really that.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

On the flip side, there are also those, who are good at business, and can see opportunities where few others can see. The herd is not always right, due to fear of novelty and negative expectations in terms of change.

We also have many scientists who believe in life on other planets, all without having any proof. This is not much different from rational people believing in outer space Sasquatches. This example of rational people doing the same thing, may help answer the question.

The idea of life on other planets is partly based on science logic, and partly based on odds and probability. When you buy a lottery ticket, you may logically know the odds are against you in terms of winning. But the prize is so valuable, that it is worth taking a chance, based on the hope and the fantasy that just playing along can induce. Life on other planets, if it was discovered, would be like winning a huge science lottery prize; awards and prestige. This is also a safe bet, since you are paid to play, and there is no deadline for the lottery drawing. It is an open ended ticket, forever. It can feed the imagination and make you and all who play, feel excited, over a very long period of time, visualizing the day the jackpot finally comes in.

The induced feelings and visualizations within the imagination, is something I jokingly like to call mental masturbation. Essentially, you use the conspiracy/lottery scenario as a way to focus and induce the brain, via the imagination, to release neuro-chemicals that make you feel good and which then help fuel the fantasy. One can stimulate the brain, to release the same brain chemicals, using the imagination, that are normally induced from the outside via our sensory systems. Some people like scary movies to externally stimulate fear and excitement. They may buy into scary conspiracy theory; end of earth, to use as a way to get the same buzz, internally.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup, where over half the people in the USA believed in a conspiracy theory and then collectively acted as though it was true? That was a very effective way to induce mental masturbation, which included otherwise rational people. In this case, the illusion induction was based on hate and fear, while the lottery prize was connected to the logical scenario end needed to dispel all the induced hate and fear, that was projected onto a single person. The way the game worked was the country would finally be able to rest, if and when the induced fantasy came to fruition; Trump behind bars. Since he is still free, there is another round to this conspiracy theory game.

Part of what made this so effective, and hard for so many to avoid, was it was a projection by those who had actually done the wrong in reality, and were afraid of going to jail. They developed a conspiracy theory, based on real life experiences, but projected onto another. There was a sense of it being genuine, but with subliminal confusion in terms of whom this was all about. The analogy is having an affair and then describing the details to your spouse, while telling her/him, this is about another person you know who had the affair. Your story will sound very genuine, except for one data exception; projection. It can sway logic and even create trust. It was not coincidence that Trump was raided for classified information just before the crap hit the fan; Biden having done the same thing for decades. The original raid seemed genuine and organic but was really a decoy to soften the impact of a worse example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are mistaken here. Science does say exactly that, that it was not "God" that created the Universe.

No, it doesn't. That is other kind of philosophy than methodological naturalism.

 

[MikeF]

No, it doesn't. That is other kind of philosophy than methodological naturalism.

Not sure how Philosophy is involved.

 

[Audie]

Not sure how Philosophy is involved.

"Philosophy" is the great obfusticator.
Those who will, make it part of any topic.

 

[Audie]

On the flip side, there are also those, who are good at business, and can see opportunities where few others can see. The herd is not always right, due to fear of novelty and negative expectations in terms of change.

We also have many scientists who believe in life on other planets, all without having any proof. This is not much different from rational people believing in outer space Sasquatches. This example of rational people doing the same thing, may help answer the question.

The idea of life on other planets is partly based on science logic, and partly based on odds and probability. When you buy a lottery ticket, you may logically know the odds are against you in terms of winning. But the prize is so valuable, that it is worth taking a chance, based on the hope and the fantasy that just playing along can induce. Life on other planets, if it was discovered, would be like winning a huge science lottery prize; awards and prestige. This is also a safe bet, since you are paid to play, and there is no deadline for the lottery drawing. It is an open ended ticket, forever. It can feed the imagination and make you and all who play, feel excited, over a very long period of time, visualizing the day the jackpot finally comes in.

The induced feelings and visualizations within the imagination, is something I jokingly like to call mental masturbation. Essentially, you use the conspiracy/lottery scenario as a way to focus and induce the brain, via the imagination, to release neuro-chemicals that make you feel good and which then help fuel the fantasy. One can stimulate the brain, to release the same brain chemicals, using the imagination, that are normally induced from the outside via our sensory systems. Some people like scary movies to externally stimulate fear and excitement. They may buy into scary conspiracy theory; end of earth, to use as a way to get the same buzz, internally.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup, where over half the people in the USA believed in a conspiracy theory and then collectively acted as though it was true? That was a very effective way to induce mental masturbation, which included otherwise rational people. In this case, the illusion induction was based on hate and fear, while the lottery prize was connected to the logical scenario end needed to dispel all the induced hate and fear, that was projected onto a single person. The way the game worked was the country would finally be able to rest, if and when the induced fantasy came to fruition; Trump behind bars. Since he is still free, there is another round to this conspiracy theory game.

Part of what made this so effective, and hard for so many to avoid, was it was a projection by those who had actually done the wrong in reality, and were afraid of going to jail. They developed a conspiracy theory, based on real life experiences, but projected onto another. There was a sense of it being genuine, but with subliminal confusion in terms of whom this was all about. The analogy is having an affair and then describing the details to your spouse, while telling her/him, this is about another person you know who had the affair. Your story will sound very genuine, except for one data exception; projection. It can sway logic and even create trust. It was not coincidence that Trump was raided for classified information just before the crap hit the fan; Biden having done the same thing for decades. The original raid seemed genuine and organic but was really a decoy to soften the impact of a worse example.

So many words to say so little.

 

[Brian2]

The problem with that is that I can do God differently than you. So you have your God as to you and I have a different God as to me. What comes next?

You write a different reply to @Soandso.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

To some its a god
To some its chance
To some its luck
To some its a god, luck and chance.

 

[MikeF]

We also have many scientists who believe in life on other planets, all without having any proof. This is not much different from rational people believing in outer space Sasquatches. This example of rational people doing the same thing, may help answer the question.
...
The idea of life on other planets is partly based on science logic, and partly based on odds and probability.

This was unclear to me. Is it your opinion that "many scientists" literally believe that there is currently life on other planets? When you use the term "scientist" to you include all scientists from every scientific discipline? When you say "many", what qualifies as many, more that 50%?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Sure. And you could say God is a spear of asparagus with awesome powers. You can say anything you like. Saying it, however, will not turn it to reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure how Philosophy is involved.

No, that is because in effect you believe that you only experience the world as through external sensation. That is one variant of empiricism, but there is another:
"...
Empiricists also endorse the Intuition/Deduction thesis, but in a more restricted sense than the rationalists: this thesis applies only to relations of the contents of our minds, not also about empirical facts, learned from the external world. By contrast, empiricists reject the Innate Knowledge and Innate Concept theses. Insofar as we have knowledge in a subject, our knowledge is gained, not only triggered, by our experiences, be they sensorial or reflective. ..."
Notice the or at the end and that all sensation are not external. Learn your philosophy, before you claim that only that which can be observed is real, because that it is real, can't be observed. That is a reflection in your mind.
I just do science differently, because I use a different version of empiricism.