Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, but it happens in reality, that they do that.

 

[Brian2]

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

Not really. Science speculates about the beginnings of the universe etc and science does not bring God into it because God has no scientific evidence to support His existence. This is the naturalistic methodology of science.
With this methodology science just keeps speculating forever into the past and does not mind if it crosses over the scriptural boundaries of any religion in it's speculations.
The speculations that it comes up with are not known to be true of course and are only educated guesses even if some people want to see them as more substantial than any of the scriptures because they................... well they are scientific.
But science does not say yay or nay to the existence of God/s, that comes from people like you and I and not from the collective thing called "science".

 

[Brian2]

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.

I was just giving possible answers to your post. But yes, saying it will not turn it to reality. But is what I said against reality or just against your beliefs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was just giving possible answers to your post. But yes, saying it will not turn it to reality. But is what I said against reality or just against your beliefs?

Yeah, I learned that one many years ago when a scientist tried to convince me, that when I was wrong that was a physical ontological fact in my brain and not really a part of reality.

 

[Audie]

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%?

As always here, our friends who are utterly unskilled
in the art attempt a commentary on science and
say ridiculous things.

Anyone looking at the numbers would probably say
there is a high probability of extraterrestrial life.

Nobody who has an understanding of scientific thinking
would claim as fact that there IS life out there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As always here, our friends who are utterly unskilled
in the art attempt a commentary on science and
say ridiculous things.

Anyone looking at the numbers would probably say
there is a high probability of extraterrestrial life.

Nobody who has an understanding of scientific thinking
would claim as fact that there IS life out there.

The probability is unknown, because we only have a sample of one.

 

[F1fan]

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?

I was going to suggest Shermar's books, and he has written quite a few about irrational belief and why humans behave that way. There's also a good biological and evolutionary explanation in opening chapters of the book Emotional Intelligence. Why people believe wierd things is actually rather simple. The real question is how you get people to be less likley to believe irrational things to vaoid them forming bad habits of thought. The bottom line is that these folks don;t believe via reasoning, but rather what feels good and rewards them. This leads to habits that are in many ways like trained animals. And since reasoning is a learned skill, anyone who lacks these skills can't work out their errors of judgment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was going to suggest Shermar's books, and he has written quite a few about irrational belief and why humans behave that way. There's also a good biological and evolutionary explanation in opening chapters of the book Emotional Intelligence. Why people believe wierd things is actually rather simple. The real question is how you get people to be less likley to believe irrational things to vaoid them forming bad habits of thought. The bottom line is that these folks don;t believe via reasoning, but rather what feels good and rewards them. This leads to habits that are in many ways like trained animals. And since reasoning is a learned skill, anyone who lacks these skills can't work out their errors of judgment.

Yeah and some people believe that they can do everything with objective reason and that rewards them, because then they are objectively better with evidence.
I know that game. Because I have read more that one book on psychology and sociology.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah and some people believe that they can do everything with objective reason and that rewards them, because then they are objectively better with evidence.

Well they can't get lost in religious dogma. But then what rational person would want to be?

I know that game. Because I have read more that one book on psychology and sociology.

You have admitted your own need to believe in a god that is due to anxiety and fear. If you have read and understood the right psychology you will understand your issue and have the freedom to move past your dependency when ready.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well they can't get lost in religious dogma. But then what rational person would want to be?

You have admitted your own need to believe in a god that is due to anxiety and fear. If you have read and understood the right psychology you will understand your issue and have the freedom to move past your dependency when ready.

Well, please refence the actual theory of that and all other theories that suggest differently. You seem to know what you are talking about, so you can do that.
Make a summary of all the theories and how your one is the correct one.

 

[MikeF]

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.

And we can set all this Philosophy aside. We are physical, our minds are physical, and the contents of our minds are just as physical.

Our minds have the ability to form abstract constructs and abstract systems that allow us to communicate with others as well as communicate with ourselves, to think and reason. Abstraction is for communication, and we can communicate about real things as well as imaginary things, about possible things as well as impossible things. Our thoughts do not have magical powers with the ability to bring things into physical existence simply by virtue of thinking of it.

If we want to use our communication tool of abstraction to talk about real and existent things, then we have to take care that the abstractions we create to talk about them consistently correspond to actual, real things or we can become lost in fiction. The purpose of a scientific approach, as opposed to a philosophical one, is to do just that, stay within the bounds of reality.

 

[MikeF]

Science speculates about the beginnings of the universe etc

Science speculates on that which there is insufficient data upon which to form a more substantial conclusion, whatever the subject matter. The confidence Science holds for any idea is commensurate with the evidence used to support the idea. In the case of competing speculations or hypotheses, we can certainly evaluate and rank them based on how well they fit to what little is actually know.

But science does not say yay or nay to the existence of God/s, that comes from people like you and I and not from the collective thing called "science".

Sure it does. If one asserts an entity with specific properties and characteristics, we have something upon which to test and verify. Without any evidence to confirm any of the claimed properties or characteristics, it does not exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was just giving possible answers to your post. But yes, saying it will not turn it to reality. But is what I said against reality or just against your beliefs?

With zero evidence of any sort, how would I know?

But that brings up a very important question: how likely is any claim to truth that has exactly zero evidence for it? Is God a talented spear of asparagus? I strongly doubt it, but can't prove it false. Is God "Love?" Life, as we know it, suggests very, very strongly that this cannot be so. Is it impossible for a universe (or the stuff that universes are made of) to have always existed, or must it have been created. I can't answer that -- but I can observe that we do indeed have a universe. But to the question of whether it's possible for a God, with the power, will, intention and intelligence to have conceived of a universe and then created it, to have always existed or must it have been created, I cannot give the same answer. I cannot say, "I observe that we do indeed have a god," because I've neither seen, heard, nor seen anything that I can say can only have been created by such a being, and not through natural causes.

So, you see, I have at least some small amount of evidence for how I see things, and none for how you see things. And I know, although you would deny it, that you cannot provide any evidence for the existence of God except for your belief. And you weren't born with that --- you were taught it by other humans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The probability is unknown, because we only have a sample of one.

But a lot better than none.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And we can set all this Philosophy aside. We are physical, our minds are physical, and the contents of our minds are just as physical.

Our minds have the ability to form abstract constructs and abstract systems that allow us to communicate with others as well as communicate with ourselves, to think and reason. Abstraction is for communication, and we can communicate about real things as well as imaginary things, about possible things as well as impossible things. Our thoughts do not have magical powers with the ability to bring things into physical existence simply by virtue of thinking of it.

If we want to use our communication tool of abstraction to talk about real and existent things, then we have to take care that the abstractions we create to talk about them consistently correspond to actual, real things or we can become lost in fiction. The purpose of a scientific approach, as opposed to a philosophical one, is to do just that, stay within the bounds of reality.

So point to the property of being psychical in this sentence for all the words as words and the meaning of the sentence.

 

[Soandso]

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.

There seems to be some misconceptions of how you see my point of view, or maybe I've done a bad job of portraying my perspective, so I will elaborate my thoughts

You say you do not know but have already made up your mind that it was not God it seems.

Not at all. A god or some kind of higher being could have created the spark that led to what we have now, I feel. Where the problem comes in is that none of the god concepts I've been shown or researched (and I've done a lot of research) seem probable to me. They have too many flaws, are too vague, or don't reflect reality as we see it. They all make claims that seem baseless, imo

Until something comes along that has tangible value, I feel that the most intellectually honest thing for me to reserve putting my beliefs into something that doesn't hold water

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

True. Many prominant scientists are theists. I don't believe religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific endeavors

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.

That may be some atheist's positions, but that's not mine. My position is that I don't know, but instead of filling the void with a baseless claim that cannot be proven, I want to wait until better information comes along

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.

I don't care about having answers to questions, I care about getting as close to the truth as possible. The most consistent evidence that does that seems to be evidence that scientific endeavors produces

Science answers how things work and speculates on how things came to be.

True, but that speculation is grounded in good evidence. Just like forensic science, we can look back and figure out things that have happened in the past, and the more breakthroughs that have been made, the better we get at it

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.

I mean, so you say. Past events show differently, though

What I need from god is something tangible - it doesn't have to be scientific. Maybe an indestructable giant tablet with every written language that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist. Something. Anthing that can't be faked

Instead we have things that anyone can just make up, and while I don't think that's the basis for all religious claims, it sure does seem to be a common theme with many of them. Like I said, I need something with varifiable substance before I can put my belief in it

 

[MikeF]

So point to the property of being psychical in this sentence for all the words as words and the meaning of the sentence.

Aside from the fact that we can communicate our abstractions in a variety of physical ways, I will address the physicality of your sentence residing in your or my brain. If one were to unethically damage selective parts of our brains, we can loose the memory of any or all of the words used, as well as the various ways in which they relate to each other in the English language, etc. So, for example, we can have an abstract construct, a label, that represents some particular thing, the moon for example. I can create an association with the physical object and a variety of labels in different media, be it associating it with a noise, a hand gesture, a pictorial representation scratched in sand, all these options in addition to the specific neurochemical configuration or configurations that our brain creates to represent the moon. Our brain can create first and foremost a visual memory of the moon, as well as multiple visual memories. Then, we can associate all those physical abstract representations, be they verbal, pictorial, or written, as relating to our memory of the moon, and store those associations in neurochemical configurations. We can also create and store abstract constructs that do not point to a physical thing, but represent an idea. This is accomplished by creating new associations between abstract constructs in our brain and storing those new associations with all storage, or memory, being physical.

 

[F1fan]

Well, please refence the actual theory of that and all other theories that suggest differently. You seem to know what you are talking about, so you can do that.
Make a summary of all the theories and how your one is the correct one.

There are many theories (explanations) in the social sciences that can be relevant to any given set of behaviors. Its be years since I read about this and would have to go back and review. If you are skeptical of the studies im curious why?

 

[F1fan]

Not really. Science speculates about the beginnings of the universe etc and science does not bring God into it because God has no scientific evidence to support His existence.

If there is no evidence how do you know its a boy God?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Make what you want of this.

As a child I hated being told what to do without an accompanying explanation. When my mother tried to instill table manners, I would ask "Why? The food gets to my mouth anyway, why does it matter exactly which implement I use and how I use it". Of course she had no answer that satisfied me as it's purely custom.

Later I wouldn't believe what I was told without an explanation that made sense to me. Religious beliefs hit my BS shield and bounced off without leaving a dent. I tended not to be popular with people that simply want to tell me "how it is" and not be questioned.

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?

I want to answer you, but I feel reluctant to obey your command.