Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God does not leave any evidence that science can use. Plenty of evidence but not what science can use.

Incoherent statements are those that contradict themselves. The phrase married bachelor is a classic example. The concept is incoherent because it is internally contradictory. Evidence is whatever is evident to the senses. Both science and every individual with external senses and the ability to reason have access to everything that can be called evidence for anything. Private evidence is not about external reality, but about the body and brain. What believers have are (at most) compelling intuitions of a god. That's not enough to call sufficient evidence of a god to justify belief.

I have personal experience here. When I was a Christian, I mistook the euphoric feeling I got singing hymns and clapping hands in my first church headed by a gifted and charismatic preacher with the presence of the Holy Spirit. But the empiricist in me never died during the period of trying on the religion for fit, despite my efforts at suppressing the cognitive dissonance as part of the suspension of unbelief. I say this, because it was after a military discharge and a return to my home state that I discovered that the euphoria was not the Holy Spirit, since that feeling didn't follow me to California and the half dozen or so congregations I tried before realizing what hat happened and walking away from Christianity. That's empiricism. That's considering evidence.

evidence that faith can see.

I recently read another poster comment on believing by evidence and faith. That's also incoherent. Either one's evidence connects to one's conclusions and justifies belief, or it isn't enough to get you there and a leap of faith is required to get to one's (unjustified) conclusion. All beliefs fit one description or the other - justified or believed by faith - with none being both or neither.

That seems to be saying that science is endeavoring to do things that go against religious beliefs.

Science is indifferent to religion, and it's mission is unrelated to it. Science's only agenda is to understand how reality works. Religion tries to tell us that as well, but without sufficient evidence to justify its claims. Science is indifferent to its findings contradicting religious dogma. If the priests were correct, science would happily confirm that for them if possible. If science contradict scripture, that's not an issue for science, but it is for religion.

Science is good for finding stuff out about the material universe

Anything that impacts material reality (nature) is another part of that reality. If one wants to postulate the existence of entities that don't impact on reality, he is making an unfalsifiable claim of no explanatory or predictive value. Nothing that is said to never modify material reality can be called real itself, or relevant even if it in some sense were real, but causally disconnected from this reality. Consider the existence of another god ruling another universe but being unable to impact this one. The question of it's existence is irrelevant.

The believer wants it both ways. He wants to claim that his god has impacted material reality enough to make itself known to him, but is nevertheless undetectable. If your brain can detect it, it's not undetectable. So what are you actually detecting? Not something causally disconnected from your brain. I say what you are detecting is only your brain - a mental state - that seduces many to give it a name and project it onto external reality.

when it comes to finding things out about any spiritual reality, science does not work

If empiricism doesn't give an answer, that answer are unavailable, and by answer, I don't mean unfalsifiable metaphysical claims with no truth value (not correct and not incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong")

I am amazed at what science has found about the past which agrees with what the Bible tells us.

Do you consider that confirmation that biblical science is accurate? Are you aware of the places where science contradicts scripture? How do you feel about that? Do you consider the misses along with the hits? If not, you are committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: "a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullet hole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences."

Yes it would be great for me to have archaeological evidence that the Bible history is true, and I get more of that every time I look for it.
It amazes me that the evidence exists and that many, even in archaeology, deny it shows that Bible history is correct.

This is the same topic. Are you aware of the archeological evidence that contradicts much of Exodus?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Reflecting reality as we see it? As who see it?
That reality might not be all real.



That seems to be saying that science is endeavoring to do things that go against religious beliefs.



So you want proof before committing to a religious belief or direction?



Science is good for finding stuff out about the material universe, and we all benefit from that. IMO when it comes to finding things out about any spiritual reality, science does not work and indeed, says it finds no evidence for a spiritual reality. It cannot study any evidence there is for a spiritual reality, and many skeptics of course say that if any spiritual reality were there, then science would find it.



Personally I am amazed at what science has found about the past which agrees with what the Bible tells us.
But since science is not about faith, it keeps looking for natural answers where none may exist. It comes up with educated speculations imo.
But that is science and not human beings who can see and use other evidence and end up with a faith while science plods away at educated guesses, which many believe (a faith) even without proof.



Yes it would be great for me to have archaeological evidence that the Bible history is true, and I get more of that every time I look for it.
It amazes me that the evidence exists and that many, even in archaeology, deny it shows that Bible history is correct. (IMO it's errors built on errors)
Then there is fulfilled prophecy but as it stands these days skeptics say things could be made up after the events and people believe that.

You know, it always amazes me when people say that archaeological evidence about places (not events) in the Bible tend towards proving that what the Bible says it true.

But I ask you, did the discovery of Troy by Heinrich Schliemann in 1870 prove that the cyclops existed, or that Circe turned men into pigs? I would imagine you'd likely say, "no."

You see, writers, even when they're writing fiction, often write about places they know, and this has always been true. Most of the places mentioned in the Greek myths have been discovered by Archaeology, but don't make the stories about the Greek gods and their wonders any more likely to most people. Same thing with the Roman Pantheon -- lots is now know about ancient Rome and the world it conquered, but not one of its gods is taken to have been a reality today.

And yet when we find a place or a thing mentioned in the Bible, that tends to reify the whole thing for many people. Pillars of fire, manna from heaven, raisings from the dead, the whole lot.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Here in Brazil social bonds tend to rely on some form of shared belief, almost as a form of cumplicity.

For some it is neo-charismatic Christianity. For others, racism. Then there are several political tendencies with little regard for the reality of facts.

This is the community where Kardecist Spiritists - a very dogmatic group indeed, and prone to huge amounts of self-delusion to boot - has achieved a reputation for being the thinking person's belief.

As so much else, I think that this aspect of Brazilian culture was shaped by expectations of our recent past. This is a land of huge territory and ample natural resources that has grown used to having the poor starve. That comes from having been a slaver monarchy so recently, and having been settled with adventurers aiming for quickly achieving political power and monetary fortunes for centuries before that.

We have never quite learned to differentiate personal merit from access to material wealth, and far too many people will fight - often desperately - to insist that they are one and the same thing. Our personal dignity is usually a direct result of our buying power.

That results in huge masses of people under surprisingly varied levels of social isolation and poverty, who end up attempting to build trusted relationships with limited options. Since even the so-called Brazilian Elites suffer from very defficient education, that demand is fulfilled largely by pacts of mutual reinforcement of convenient beliefs. That happens across the whole spectrum of power, from our prisons to our judges, military, congresspeople and other elected representatives.

It is a fragile and very self-sabotaging society that wants very badly to convince itself that it is not responsible for its own poor choices and values. That of course leads to the current fascistic trends, but also to a considerable amount of disconfort with honest questioning and skepticism. Many Brazilians have a hard time even accepting that atheists exist. Many Brazilians seem to have convinced themselves that science is a mainly political activity - because they have little idea of how anything could be significant without some form of political decree.

TLDR: Brazilians have a culture based on mutual encouragement of belief for the sake of belief, mainly because we are too afraid of learning better and having to deal with the consequences.

 

[anna.]

Some folks are intensely uncomfortable with uncertainty.

True. I do wonder if it's more of a western problem though, because of something I heard long ago about eastern minds being much more comfortable with ambiguity, and with holding two conflicting ideas without feeling a need to remove that conflict. So maybe psychology and philosophy?

 

[Alien826]

Isn't that why we see creationists that know almost no science at all arguing with people educated in the sciences? They don't see that there is a difference between what they believe and what the others believe. It's all just somebody's opinion, and they see theirs as as good as any other.

Not always. From my experience watching them, the "professional" creationists (see AIG) are not really expecting to defeat scientists in their own fields. They are playing to the audience, who are their own already convinced, or wavering, supporters. If they can get a scientist to say something, anything, that can be twisted or misinterpreted to suggest that he is not 100% certain about some scientific finding, that's good enough to use it in their literature. See, they say, theories are just guesses, this scientist admitted it!

Why do they do this? I can't be sure, but this is a strong possibility imo .... $$$$

 

[George-ananda]

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

I'm one of those you would put in the 'believer' camp on many controversial things in religion. spirituality and the paranormal. And I 'hold out for evidence' too.

I would think we would all agree that is bad to be too resistant or too gullible.

And I would call my beliefs evidenced-based and not what is pejoratively referred to as 'faith'. "Evidence' is anything to consider relative to a subject. Anecdotal experiences then are 'evidence' to be considered for example. 'Consider' implies neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal. A quantity, quality and consistency of experiences can influence my understanding of reality.

I think you are shifting the word 'evidence' into meaning reproducible proof. That would be 'proof' not just 'evidence'.

In the end I weigh all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and determine what is most reasonable to believe. Yes, I have come to believe this universe is indeed deep below the surface.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm one of those you would put in the 'believer' camp on many controversial things in religion. spirituality and the paranormal. And I 'hold out for evidence' too.

I would think we would all agree that is bad to be too resistant or too gullible.

And I would call my beliefs evidenced-based and not what is pejoratively referred to as 'faith'. "Evidence' is anything to consider relative to a subject. Anecdotal experiences then are 'evidence' to be considered for example. 'Consider' implies neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal. A quantity, quality and consistency of experiences can influence my understanding of reality.

I think you are shifting the word 'evidence' into meaning reproducible proof. That would be 'proof' not just 'evidence'.

In the end I weigh all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and determine what is most reasonable to believe. Yes, I have come to believe this universe is indeed deep below the surface.

I am not shifting the word evidence. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that some things are not really evidence that many will accept as if they were.

Consider hearsay, for example. If a witness says in court, "I heard the accused say such-and-such," that would be evidence. It might be false -- the witness may be lying. However, if that witness says, "my wife told me that the accused said such-and-such," that is not evidence.

Thus, I might be inclined to listen to "anecdotal experience" directly from someone claiming to have had such -- so long as they were willing to answer my questions about said experience. In the end, I may not accept those experiences as what the person thinks they were, based on several things: my own knowledge of how things (including the mind) work, what sort of responses I got to my follow-up questions, and so forth. But I will still agree that they were evidence. My question then becomes, "evidence of what?"

 

[Alien826]

Science is good for finding stuff out about the material universe, and we all benefit from that. IMO when it comes to finding things out about any spiritual reality, science does not work and indeed, says it finds no evidence for a spiritual reality. It cannot study any evidence there is for a spiritual reality, and many skeptics of course say that if any spiritual reality were there, then science would find it.

How would you have science study "spiritual reality"? I don't see any reason why it's impossible, by the way. Let's do a "what if" and have science investigate the resurrection of Jesus. First would be presentation of evidence. What do we have? Some very old writings that describe it. OK, now we need to establish the veracity or otherwise of these writings. We can't point to other sections of the same writings that have been shown to be correct, they refer to different events. We need something about this particular event. We can't point to long established belief, lots of those have been shown to be wrong. What do we have? Just the writings themselves. Maybe we go on to claim that the writings were "inspired by God" so must be correct. How can know that? The writings themselves say so? Give me a break. And how we know there is a God and that it has certain characteristics?

OK, you've heard all this before, but I'm trying to describe an open minded scientist who is genuinely trying to examine all the evidence. He shakes his head and says "Is that all there is?"

What I'd like you to consider though, is that it doesn't have to be a scientist, just a normal person that applies the same reasoning that he uses in the rest of his life. You have fairies at the bottom of your garden, you say? OK, show me. They don't seem to be there today? OK, let's try tomorrow.

Why is the "evidence" that supports "faith" have to be of a different nature than any other evidence?

 

[George-ananda]

I am not shifting the word evidence. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that some things are not really evidence that many will accept as if they were.

Consider hearsay, for example. If a witness says in court, "I heard the accused say such-and-such," that would be evidence. It might be false -- the witness may be lying. However, if that witness says, "my wife told me that the accused said such-and-such," that is not evidence.

Thus, I might be inclined to listen to "anecdotal experience" directly from someone claiming to have had such -- so long as they were willing to answer my questions about said experience. In the end, I may not accept those experiences as what the person thinks they were, based on several things: my own knowledge of how things (including the mind) work, what sort of responses I got to my follow-up questions, and so forth. But I will still agree that they were evidence.

Ok, so you are agreeing we can put aside this 'there is no evidence' claim.

My question then becomes, "evidence of what?"

You take all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and being honest with yourself judge 'what is most reasonable to believe all things considered'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True. I do wonder if it's more of a western problem though, because of something I heard long ago about eastern minds being much more comfortable with ambiguity, and with holding two conflicting ideas without feeling a need to remove that conflict. So maybe psychology and philosophy?

A rabbi once told me that Judaism requires one to dance with two partners at the same time.

(I didn't have the heart to tell him that I don't dance.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, so you are agreeing we can put aside this 'there is no evidence' claim.


You take all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and being honest with yourself judge 'what is most reasonable to believe all things considered'.

As David Hume said: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

Or Christopher Hitchens, who claims (falsely) that David Hume said this about the virgin birth of Jesus: "Which is more likely — that the whole natural order is to be suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?" (I suspect Hitchens was paraphrasing Hume in an effort to be funny.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As David Hume said: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

Or Christopher Hitchens, who claims (falsely) that David Hume said this about the virgin birth of Jesus: "Which is more likely — that the whole natural order is to be suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?" (I suspect Hitchens was paraphrasing Hume in an effort to be funny.)

Yeah, you are aware that it relies on induction to be proven true.

 

[George-ananda]

As David Hume said: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

Or Christopher Hitchens, who claims (falsely) that David Hume said this about the virgin birth of Jesus: "Which is more likely — that the whole natural order is to be suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?" (I suspect Hitchens was paraphrasing Hume in an effort to be funny.)

Those are exactly the kind of considerations I take into account too in forming my all things considered opinion.

If there are enough examples of people clearly seeing ghosts, then at some point I might think the existence of such things is more probable than every single case being a misinterpretation or hoax. It's a reasonable judgment call where that point is reached. I do believe people have seen ghosts, by the way. Then 'what are ghosts?' becomes the next step in thought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You take all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and being honest with yourself judge 'what is most reasonable to believe all things considered'.

When the meaning of "evidence" is reduced to "that which serves to make the accuracy of [the assertion] evident to me," it looses much of its glitter, if only because the value of such evidence is heavily dependent on the quality of one's judgment. Far more useful are informed and logical inferences from intersubjectively verifiable claims.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Those are exactly the kind of considerations I take into account too in forming my all things considered opinion.

If there are enough examples of people clearly seeing ghosts, then at some point I might think the existence of such things is more probable than every single case being a misinterpretation or hoax. It's a reasonable judgment call where that point is reached. I do believe people have seen ghosts, by the way. Then 'what are ghosts?' becomes the next step in thought.

And if you conclude that "ghosts" are, in fact, figments of the imagination? I think it important that we remember that the human mind can be easily fooled into thinking it is seeing things that are not at all what they appear. How many great optical illusions have you seen? Here's one that I have on my phone.

 

[George-ananda]

When the meaning of "evidence" is reduced to "that which serves to make the accuracy of [the assertion] evident to me," it looses much of its glitter, if only because the value of such evidence is heavily dependent on the quality of one's judgment.

We must always consider arguments and the counter-arguments (i.e. think from both sides).

Far more useful are informed and logical inferences from intersubjectively verifiable claims.

And I'll consider all that too with relish when available.


.

 

[Alien826]

And if you conclude that "ghosts" are, in fact, figments of the imagination? I think it important that we remember that the human mind can be easily fooled into thinking it is seeing things that are not at all what they appear. How many great optical illusions have you seen? Here's one that I have on my phone.

View attachment 75686

Damn! The invisibility shield on my spaceship fails for a second and there's some guy with a camera snapping away. Thankfully we aliens rely on the human propensity to disbelieve to maintain our secrecy.

 

[George-ananda]

And if you conclude that "ghosts" are, in fact, figments of the imagination? I think it important that we remember that the human mind can be easily fooled into thinking it is seeing things that are not at all what they appear. How many great optical illusions have you seen?

OK, so you are concluding all ghost encounters are more likely to be optical illusions along with other natural explanations than something real and unknown to science. I think the other way in the case of ghosts when all things and events are considered.

As I said, it becomes a personal judgment and we can differ. Or we can argue both sides of the ghost argument for 50 posts each and still end in disagreement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We must always consider arguments and the counter-arguments (i.e. think from both sides).

It helps to have the tools to do so.

 

[George-ananda]

It helps to have the tools to do so.

<yawn> ignore </yawn>​