Why Don't You Believe?

[Mr Spinkles]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~Stephen Roberts


We all disbelieve in some things. Whether you believe strongly that something is false, or doubt it, or simply defer belief in it for when and if good evidence is found to substantiate the claim, there must be some things in which you lack faith. The following is one possible example of such a thing:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a supernatural being (who can, of course, manifest Herself in physical form if She wants). From another thread:
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us to brush her long, flowing mane and tail. But she wants us to brush her hair because we want to, not because we've been forced to. Her holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn let's us choose whether we want to live in bliss brushing her hair or suffer eternal damnation shoveling her manure in the afterlife. It's up to us to choose. People who choose not to believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have made their choice, and with a heavy heart, she will respect their decision."

The above is, in my opinion, a bunch of horse dung. I have little doubt that most of you feel the same way.

But why do you not believe in it? Why don't you believe in a million other stories, myths, legends, and gods, for that matter? What causes a person to doubt--or at least defer acceptance of--a claim?

I would argue that two main factors cause people to not believe in a claim:
1) The claim is not psychologically/emotionally attractive in some way. Here, "attractive" means the claim promises rewards for belief and/or punishment for disbelief, or that a person has already decided the claim is true and the psychological phenomenon known as "confirmation bias" keeps them from genuinely considering the possibility that it is false.
2) The claim does not fit with or is not/cannot be supported by observation (only imagination).

I would argue that only #2 is a valid reason for rejecting/deferring belief in a claim, in terms of how likely it is that the resulting disbelief corresponds to reality.

Think of some things you don't believe in (like the IPU, for exmaple). Why don't you beleive? Don't you have enough faith? Do you WANT to shovel manure for eternity?!

 

[No*s]

I don't believe in Santa Clause, because I know the person who used to put the gifts under the tree .

Seriously, though, I reject ideas on a couple of grounds

1). I don't want to believe. There are some things I believe simply because I want to.
2). I don't see any reason to believe.
3). My belief structure disallows it in some fashion.

Any of those three causes me to reject a belief, and I'll bet, there are other causes I haven't listed and haven't thought of .

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1). I don't want to believe. There are some things I believe simply because I want to.

Ah, so believing in things that correspond to reality is not as important as believing in things that you want to believe in? I'm not saying that's bad necessarily, just asking for clarification.

2). I don't see any reason to believe.

Reasons such as evidence?

3). My belief structure disallows it in some fashion.

I already mentioned the confirmation bias.

 

[No*s]

Ah, so believing in things that correspond to reality is not as important as believing in things that you want to believe in? I'm not saying that's bad necessarily, just asking for clarification.

That's the best way I have to put it. Sometimes I believe something, simply because I "want" to. There is som, arational, reason to want to, and not everything fits neatly under that category. For instance, something may strike me as simply true or false. I can't verify one way or another, but I've made up my mind...I may not even have a vested interest in the matter to care one way or the other. On other occasions the "want" is emotional. These are arational reasons to believe something that do occur.

Reasons such as evidence?

Evidence isn't the only thing that gives a reason to believe, but yes, evidence is a big one . Sometimes an interpretation of the world is built on reason, but with an axiom that sort of greases the wheels. While it gives many reasons, maybe not proof, if I don't share the axiom, then I see no reason to share the belief.

As an example, I don't accept the opinion that humanity is simply a cog in the machine of society. It's not because of a lack of evidence, there's a good deal, but instead because the reasoning simply doesn't hold much weight with me compared to the view that society and the individual work with each other and each change each other.

I already mentioned the confirmation bias.

Well, yes . I tend to want to go to the logical conclusions where possible. This is a trait of mine in how I come to believe/disbelieve. If I believe a claim that disallows another claim, then I feel I need to either give up mine, the other, or both. I maintain my beliefs until I feel I should abandon them, and the point at which I should abandon will be different for me than for another person.

This, admittedly, is very closely related to how I view the preceding, except that the latter is disallwed, while the former is simply something I see no evidence for.

None of these reasons are purely rational, but I don't think reason alone can supply all the axioms we need. We need supra-rational axioms and arational axioms. It only goes so far .

 

[michel]

I guess I'm going to be shot down in flames over this one, but, after having studied quite a bit of psychology, I became aware that it is imperative that Parents don't tell kids untruths (Simply because a child, once he has found out you told him an untruth will never quite be able to -totally subconsciously- belive every thing you say in the future).

What's our first lies to kids -Father christmas, the tooth fairy..

O.K so I'm a spoil sport; but there is a school of thought that supports this argument!
(Especially when James woke up one evening as I was trying to put a coin under his pillow!!!):jiggy:

 

[Lightkeeper]

My only real belief is staying open. I never heard of pink unicorns until I came here and I have to say that image has been run into the ground. I'd like to see more creativity. I think steadfast beliefs and cliches are roadblocks. I'm not sure I believe in believing.

 

[Master Vigil]

This is just my opinion. But one of the first thing kids learn to do is lie. When a little kid breaks something, and you ask them if they did it, they will lie. It is an extremely natural occurrence, and it lives on into adulthood. Since it is so natural for people to lie, I have a hard time believing anyone. Unless I see objective evidence that can't lie for itself. I also understand that my objective evidence may not exist for someone else. (I can smell the spirits, but not everyone can.) But it was evidence that allowed me to believe. Belief in a god though, with no evidence except for a book written by people who lie, and testimonies from people who lie, with no objective evidence. Its a far cry for me to believe.

 

[michel]

This is just my opinion. But one of the first thing kids learn to do is lie. When a little kid breaks something, and you ask them if they did it, they will lie. It is an extremely natural occurrence, and it lives on into adulthood. Since it is so natural for people to lie, I have a hard time believing anyone. Unless I see objective evidence that can't lie for itself. I also understand that my objective evidence may not exist for someone else. (I can smell the spirits, but not everyone can.) But it was evidence that allowed me to believe. Belief in a god though, with no evidence except for a book written by people who lie, and testimonies from people who lie, with no objective evidence. Its a far cry for me to believe.

Presumably, that's where I've 'gone wrong' in life; my attitude is 'believe every one until you can prove they are wrong' (I suppose because of the 'treat others as you would wish to be treated' morale). I am sure I am in the minority, but I have my principles; that is one of them, as is the 'what you see is what you get' - if you don't like it I'm not going to change the way I am, because I would not be being true to myself. The other main one is 'Love conquers all'; I refuse to accept that it doesn't (Which I suppose means that I'd be an easy target if I went to Iraq), but that's 'me', and 'me' couldn't be any different.

 

[retrorich]

Why Don't You Believe?

I think you need a reason to believe. If you do not have such a reason, that is reason enough to not believe.

 

[michel]

PART QUOTE: Master VIGIL [But one of the first thing kids learn to do is lie. When a little kid breaks something, and you ask them if they did it, they will lie. It is an extremely natural occurrence, and it lives on into adulthood.]


I remember doing exactly that when I was forced to have a 'nap' in the afternoons in Africa, when all I wanted to do was sneak out and play. I could get to a back door without my parents knowing, and so they locked it and took away the key. Me, being me, took a key from another door and of course, it broke in the lock; I quickly discarded the broken end I had and pretended nothing had happened.

I had to own up though, when my parents (Who obviously knew jolly well it was I who had broken the key) told me that they were taking the bit they had found to the police station, to have them look at finger-prints. UGH! of course, I broke down; I could see myself in a cell....... (Actually that is a childhood memory I had totally forgotten about until I saw your answer to the thread M.V)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Humans are great at "guesstimating". Well, maybe "great" is not the right word... we rely on guesstimates, but many times our accuracy waivers. We have no one else to blame, but ourselves if our guesstimate is wrong.

When we experience several circumstances and our brains try to tie them together. We try to determine causality. "Hmnn, the last time I yelled at someone, they yelled back". Unlike any other animal, we not only want to know what just happened, we also want to know WHY it happened.

It is my humble belief that God wired us this way, so we would seek him and perhaps find him. The Bible tells us that God has set eternity on our hearts... we know that there is "more" out there and so we look and look. All of us are presented with all sorts of evidences. Some of it physical, some of spiritual, some of it seen by all and some can only be perceived by a few. So deluged with all of these evidences, we try our hardest to put the pieces of the puzzle together to solve "the cosmological riddle". We do this by guesstimation. We draw our mental paradigms and test these against our known set of facts. If it passes, we may try to make an inference to test it even further. Perhaps we massage our paradigm a bit to better fit the facts. Sometimes we massage the facts instead or reject them outright if they just don't (or won't) fit in.

Sometimes we are presented with another paradigm: like the IPU. Rather than having to determine in a rather ponderous fashion why we don't believe in the IPU, our incredibly facile brain, holds it up to our paradigm. It either fits or it doesn't.

But maybe something about the IPU stikes a chord. So we rethink our paradigm in light of new evidences. Perhaps we have an epiphany, and see that the IPU resolves all of the evidences that we have AND infers other evidences that are also proven corect. We then have a major paradigm shift, which most of us call a conversion.

But we don't need a reason to "not believe" in the IPU. It either fits our current paradigm or it doesn't!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But we don't need a reason to "not believe" in the IPU. It either fits our current paradigm or it doesn't!

Are you saying everyone does this, NetDoc, or are you only speaking for yourself here? As for me personally, my belief/disbelief is contingent upon the evidence...if there was good evidence for an Invisible Pink Unicorn, I would believe in Her whether She fit my paradigms or not. Reality, after all, is not required to fit our paradigms.

 

[Scuba Pete]

As for me personally, my belief/disbelief is contingent upon the evidence.

You are a deluded person if you truly feel that you have digested ALL the evidence that exists. I would suggest that you have been exposed to less than %1 of the evidences out there. Your reliance on your interpretation of this miscule amount of evidence can only happen with the use of a paradigm.

If fact, to live your life based only on the evidence (and all the evidence) would lead to the "paralysis of analysis". You would be spending ALL of your time in research and would spend NO TIME actually living your life.

We all use paradigms to facilitate many areas of our lives. Social interactions, speech, faith, even driving a car. The only way to exclude their use is to understand EVERYTHING there is to understand and to have ALL THE EVIDENCE safely within your grasp.

 

[Pah]

You are a deluded person if you truly feel that you have digested ALL the evidence that exists. I would suggest that you have been exposed to less than %1 of the evidences out there. Your reliance on your interpretation of this miscule amount of evidence can only happen with the use of a paradigm....

It is not necessary to have ALL the evidence.

Coherence, an epistemological measure of truth. [As a criterion of truth, coherence refers to a systematic consistent explanation of all the facts of experience. To be coherent, a person must arrange all pertinent facts so that they will be in. proper relationship to one another consistently and cohesively as parts of an integrated whole. Whatever facts are brought to light must be explained, must somehow be fitted into the system as a relevant or integral part. That explanation which most fulfills the requirements of coherence may be regarded as adequately verified.

Of all the criteria treated, coherence meets the demands of a standard of verification or test of truth most adequately. It includes reason, facts, system, integration, relationships, consistency. Its obvious limitation lies not in the criterion of coherence, but in man's limitations or his inability to obtain all facts of experience. Only an omniscient mind possesses all facts of experience; consequently, man must be content to deal with all facts at his disposal at the present time, allowing that point to be regarded as proved true which is the most coherent under prevailing circumstances. That person, school of thought, or idea which is supported in a coherent manner by most of the facts must be accepted as verified.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35

It is sufficient to take the experienced or gathered evidence and conclude a truth that is open and susceptible to additional input. Evidence derived from faith, even confirmed by revelation (one of the poorest criterion of truth), can not be applied to an argument governed by the tenets of Epistemology

 

[Melody]

I guess I'm going to be shot down in flames over this one, but, after having studied quite a bit of psychology, I became aware that it is imperative that Parents don't tell kids untruths (Simply because a child, once he has found out you told him an untruth will never quite be able to -totally subconsciously- belive every thing you say in the future).

What's our first lies to kids -Father christmas, the tooth fairy..

O.K so I'm a spoil sport; but there is a school of thought that supports this argument!
(Especially when James woke up one evening as I was trying to put a coin under his pillow!!!):jiggy:

You won't get shot down by me. We never did the Santa Claus or easter bunny here and the tooth fairy was always "tongue-in-cheek" and the kids knew exactly who stuck that quarter under their pillow.

On the other hand, we wanted to teach our boys that just because it's said in a reasonable manner, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is any truth in what is being said. For example, when my son was 4 years old, he overheard someone saying "she thinks money grows on trees." He then asked, if it doesn't grow on trees, where does it grow? With a straight face I told him that it actually grows on bushes. He thought about it for a minute and then said, "if it just grows on bushes, then how come dad goes to work every day?" We had a several minute conversation while he tried to reason this out with me. Followed by, "Moooom" (in a totally disgusted voice).

Of course their teachers are not pleased with the results of this upbringing because the boys will call them on some of the illogical stuff they spout in the classroom. <eg>

 

[Melody]

I would argue that two main factors cause people to not believe in a claim:
1) The claim is not psychologically/emotionally attractive in some way. Here, "attractive" means the claim promises rewards for belief and/or punishment for disbelief, or that a person has already decided the claim is true and the psychological phenomenon known as "confirmation bias" keeps them from genuinely considering the possibility that it is false.
2) The claim does not fit with or is not/cannot be supported by observation (only imagination).

I would have to disagree since Paganism, particularly Wicca, is a much more attractive belief to me than Christianity because it has a "live and let live" attitude and I don't have the worry that God is going to smite me and send me to hell if my faith isn't true. I don't believe confirmation bias would apply either since I'm always considering the possibility that it's false....but then God shows me it isn't.

I'm not quite sure how to apply #2 since it seems it would only work with no belief since there is no "observation" that would be accepted by a non-believer (of any belief system).

 

[painted wolf]

my religion has no promices or reward or punnishment for belief or non belief.... it isn't very attractive in that sence.
I'd like to think that my faith is Epistemological, its fairly open to new evidences and I try to keep my 'revilations' to the barest minimum.

I guess this is also why I don't beleive in the things I don't believe in.
I like to roll things around in my head and examine them, I like evidence and discovery.

I don't like being told things are 'unknowable' or 'unexplainable'. I stoped believing in Santa Clause when I first started putting together that he couldn't get to all those houses at once... and why would he leave me presents at both my Mom's and my Dad's houses? Shouldn't he know wich one I'm in? And why was there never any deer prints or poop on the roof?

wa:do

 

[Ceridwen018]

I think that you're missing a few factors. I think there a couple other things that people look at when they're assessing different beliefs.

1. Can I trust it?
--What does it's history look like? Using the IPU as an example, she doesn't really have a history. Even Christianity had to hang around for awhile until it became widely accepted.

2. Will it bring me security?
--This really goes along with the fist one, as well as the different psychological factors that have been talked about earlier. Kids are taught what to think when they are young, and they comply in order to fit in with their families, and supposedly, their communities. Even today, you don't see many people converting to Zoroastrianism. If people are going to convert, it's usually from one major world religion to another. Humans are herd animals, and it is in our nature to want to have a "pack" around us at all times.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pah,

what you are calling "Coherence" I am calling a "Paradigm".

Here is a definition:

Paradigm:

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

what you are calling "Coherence" I am calling a "Paradigm".

Here is a definition:

Paradigm:

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

It is more like a meme but that may be mincing words. However, that is another criterion of truth - tradition. I believe tradition ranks lower than revelation. The article at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35[/url] lists several criteria preceeding correspondence. Duet and I disagee whether correspondence is better than coherence but I'm sure he would agree with me that those nearer the beggining of the article are inferior to both.