Why do People Believe in God(s)?

philologos · 05-10-2009 10:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, I'm sure you believe what you're saying but the fact remains that your entire thought process was built around christianity by virtue of being brought up by christians and surrounded by christians so the fact that you went on to find the bible convincing is hardly surprising.

I disagree that this is true. I don't believe that my thought process was built up around Christianity at all. My life didn't reflect Christianity, and I didn't know very much about it.

Making assumptions about my life isn't very helpful when you are discussing with the one who has indeed lived it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You and I both know that the world follows certain natural laws and if anyone came along claiming to have broken them our first response would be skepticism, we would ask him to prove his claims. As rational people we employ this reasoning in all aspects of our lives, to all claims, to all movements, to all books. But you make an exception for one 2000 year old unverifiable book, You read a few paragraphs within its pages and that is enough for you to believe that, while every other claim of the supernatural in history is false, these ones are true. No matter how you dress it up, there's a lot more than dispassionate rationality going on there.

Your problem is the first premise. It's not that I don't believe that the universe follows natural laws, it's that I believe that these laws were authored, and you do not. That's where we will be forever in disagreement.

If God has created the universe to be governed by laws, it is also conceivable that God has ordained moral laws for us to follow, and it is also conceivable that God can manipulate said scientific laws.

You do not believe there is a God in the first place, I do. That's the disagreement. Not that the world has natural laws, nor am I making exceptions for anything. The author of said laws, if God, cannot be subject to those laws that He has created.

The question always revolves back to the following two questions, one for you and one for me:

1) What implies that God exists?
2) What implies that God does not exist?

That is the best we can get. Claiming that there are natural laws no means excludes God's existence in the slightest if God authored said laws which Christianity claims He did.

Malty_T wrote: »

Well firstly, you should have copped on by now that NOBODY here has made such a claim. In fact the science is telling us that is IMPOSSIBLE to make any decision without using some emotion. I was merely explaining a basic reason behind confirmation bias and decision making. Jakkass, what you have been arguing or trying to argue I do not fully understand yet, please state it, because otherwise it just seems like you want to contradict things that I haven't actually said.

Let's recap. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that this is equally valid for skepticism, we aren't getting anywhere here. I have already said that all decisions including skepticism involve emotion, yet they also include some degree of reason behind them.

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyhu you asked for sources. Why emotion plays a greater part in our reasoning than we'd like to think.

I didn't ask for sources for this claim, I asked for sources for this claim:

Malty_T wrote:

Sam, is not saying that faith is all emotion based, he is saying that faith depends more on emotion than reason. This has been scientifically proven, so you can disagree all you like but

I need a citation for the specific claim that faith depends more on emotion, and I need reference that rule skepticism out of such definition.

This isn't proof, it's contested theory, that's why I take objection to referring to it as "scientifically proven".

Malty_T wrote: »

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070215144329.htm
Quick google of rational decision making versus emotional yielded the above and many other examples that all state the same thing...we feel more decisions than we base them on logic.

Is this equally applicable to skepticism, and if not why not?

Malty_T wrote: »

"A bat and a ball together cost €1.10, the bat cost €1 euro more than the ball...how much does the ball cost?"
Say what you think it is, then work it out mathematically on paper if needs be;)
[Common Sense isn't looking so good now is it? The answer btw, is 5 cents, assuming my maths are right :P]

There is no reason why emotion would impact on mathematics, I can agree with you that emotion would impact both on certain faith decisions, and on skepticism, but certainly nothing more than equally in both circumstances.

Malty_T wrote: »

If you were to offer a €100 between two people, and give one person the entire sum with the added stipulation that he must share at least €10 with the other person, would the other person accept the €10? Most people do not take the €10, even though they have just being given free money.

Reason could also have an impact in the decision to refuse. Social norms such as politeness and not willing to put another human being out of their way while reinforced with emotion are still very much rational decisions.

Turtwig · 05-10-2009 11:49PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Your problem is the first premise. It's not that I don't believe that the universe follows natural laws, it's that I believe that these laws were authored, and you do not. That's where we will be forever in disagreement.

If God has created the universe to be governed by laws, it is also conceivable that God has ordained moral laws for us to follow, and it is also conceivable that God can manipulate said scientific laws.

What gives you right to claim that this 'GOD' is your Christian God???

Let's recap. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that this is equally valid for skepticism, we aren't getting anywhere here. I have already said that all decisions including skepticism involve emotion, yet they also include some degree of reason behind them.

Seriously....where are you going with this. Of course skepticism involves emotion have you missed the point where I said.
NO DECISION, NONE WHATSOEVER can be made without using SOME emotion??

I need a citation for the specific claim that faith depends more on emotion, and I need reference that rule skepticism out of such definition.

EVERYTHING, depends more on emotion than reason, that was the point, our brains are wired to accept emotion more than reason. Everything is also open to skepticism.
Jakkass, this is not an ad hominem attack but bare with me a second.. you are deluded! So am I. It might not necessarily be about God it could be about how you see yourself, the thing is our brain is remarkable at covering this from us..it is wired to do so.
Google it, it's pretty much well established that emotion makes more decisions than we'd like. Google it. I've provided some sources for you, maybe you can find others, and yes again everything is open to skepticism. In fact I suggest whatever you read you copy it into Word, and change the font to something messy and then change the font colour to red. That seems to make our brains act more rationally for some reason.

There is no reason why emotion would impact on mathematics, I can agree with you that emotion would impact both on certain faith decisions, and on skepticism, but certainly nothing more than equally in both circumstances.

The point is it appears to do so doesn't it..honestly what was your first initial guess?
I know you can't agree with it, then read up on it because so far the evidence is pointing to emotion being the dominant player. Of course be skeptical, try to disprove it using science and experiment. So far though, it's standing tall.

Reason could also have an impact in the decision to refuse. Social norms such as politeness and not willing to put another human being out of their way while reinforced with emotion are still very much rational decisions.

It could, but it has alot less than I'd like to believe.
Jakkass, like you I struggled to accept this stuff at first too. So, I urge you read up on this stuff, by all means be skeptical:)
Start with Goldman's book as he pretty much popularised this stuff. Supposedly though the exact models he used have been refuted.
Have fun, as it's an amazing field of science and will help you to understand yourself and others better.:)

philologos · 06-10-2009 06:31AM

Malty T: You emphasise a double standard here, if I can be deluded by accepting faith by what you have said you could be equally deluded by misusing skepticism. I don't know why you make a special case for it throughout your argument without real reason.

eoin5 · 06-10-2009 09:14AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: You emphasise a double standard here, if I can be deluded by accepting faith by what you have said you could be equally deluded by misusing skepticism. I don't know why you make a special case for it throughout your argument without real reason.

Skepticism applied fully cripples all belief systems, even in your own existance. Basically if you believe anything then your misusing skepticism. The 'non-believing' = 'believing in something' argument gets beaten here too as its a completely absolute point of view.

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 09:15AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that this is true. I don't believe that my thought process was built up around Christianity at all. My life didn't reflect Christianity, and I didn't know very much about it.

Making assumptions about my life isn't very helpful when you are discussing with the one who has indeed lived it.

Your problem is the first premise. It's not that I don't believe that the universe follows natural laws, it's that I believe that these laws were authored, and you do not. That's where we will be forever in disagreement.

If God has created the universe to be governed by laws, it is also conceivable that God has ordained moral laws for us to follow, and it is also conceivable that God can manipulate said scientific laws.

You do not believe there is a God in the first place, I do. That's the disagreement. Not that the world has natural laws, nor am I making exceptions for anything. The author of said laws, if God, cannot be subject to those laws that He has created.

The question always revolves back to the following two questions, one for you and one for me:

1) What implies that God exists?
2) What implies that God does not exist?

That is the best we can get. Claiming that there are natural laws no means excludes God's existence in the slightest if God authored said laws which Christianity claims He did.

No Jakkass the question does not revolve back to those two questions because those two questions completely miss the point I'm making. They assume that it must be your god or nothing. Once you assume that a God of some form exists and once you assume that he can manipulate the laws of nature at will, you are left with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of contradictory and mutually exclusive claims of various gods doing x, y and z for specific people or at specific times and none of these claims have any hard evidence supporting them. If they did then the existence of that particular god would be proven, faith would no longer be necessary and we would all be members of that religion, except of course for the stubborn few. Anyone who was not a member would be thought of like those who wouldn't believe our Lisbon treaty guarantees were binding in the past few weeks, those irrational people who refused to accept the plain facts

There is no rational, objective and dispassionate way to choose one completely unsubstantiated collection of claims of the laws of nature being broken and declare them to be the perfect truth while declaring all other completely unsubstantiated collection of claims of the laws of nature being broken to be false. As Wicknight says, most religions "tick all the boxes" and that's why they've survived so long. They all provide some kind of moral guidance, they provide answers to life's questions, they provide comfort and give followers confidence in their lives etc so it's hardly surprising that the vast majority of people find what they're looking for in the religion of their parents.

Bottom line, do you accept that, had you been born to different parents in another part of the world, you would most likely now believe in their version of god (or gods) as strongly as you do in the protestant version of Judeo-Christian God or do you think that you're not like the other 95% of people who end up accepting the religion of their parents as the one true faith, that you're one of the tiny few lucky enough to actually be born into the one true faith?

Zombrex · 06-10-2009 10:08AM

Jakkass wrote: »

You emphasise a double standard here, if I can be deluded by accepting faith by what you have said you could be equally deluded by misusing skepticism.

Isn't that the point?

Personal assessment alone is inherently untrustworthy because the human judgement system is not a particularly good instrument at determining the truth about reality.

Which causes a problem for theists because all they have is personal judgement that it "makes more sense" that God (their particular version) exists than doesn't exist.

Which is a determination that is based solely on how they think the universe should work, the requirements on the universe to make sense to them. Which is an area that the last 150 years of science has demonstrated humans are particularly error prone.

Turtwig · 06-10-2009 02:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: You emphasise a double standard here, if I can be deluded by accepting faith by what you have said you could be equally deluded by misusing skepticism. I don't know why you make a special case for it throughout your argument without real reason.

Indeed, I could be deluded, the point is I'm trying to find out where and how.
I may never succeed, but I'm trying. If you are then you should actually look critically at your own religion.Open your mind Jakkass, Christianity might be the right religion, I cannot tell, but don't tell me you have opened it, because the very fact you denied emotion as the more dominant factor in your decisions tells me you haven't!

philologos · 06-10-2009 03:29PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Indeed, I could be deluded, the point is I'm trying to find out where and how.

What makes you think this is isolated to your particular case?

Malty_T wrote: »

I may never succeed, but I'm trying. If you are then you should actually look critically at your own religion.Open your mind Jakkass, Christianity might be the right religion, I cannot tell, but don't tell me you have opened it, because the very fact you denied emotion as the more dominant factor in your decisions tells me you haven't!

What makes you think I didn't ask questions about Christianity when I was in the middle of seeking it? Questioning Christianity doesn't always end in rejection.

I would contend that people should look critically at their atheism, or their secular worldview, but this seems to be rarely proposed.

You can make whatever assumptions you want about how much or how little I have questioned my faith, it's ultimately baseless.

robindch · 06-10-2009 03:37PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I would contend that people should look critically at their atheism

How seriously have you studied the Greek gods, or the Roman ones, or about Zoroaster, or the Hindu deities, the Norse gods or the Mayan deities, or all of the hundreds of animist religions of South America, Asia and Africa, and with a mind which is truly ready to accept them?

Just going by percentages alone, I'd imagine that you reject the existence of at least as many deities as any atheist does, and probably with far more passion than any atheist would.

Dades · 06-10-2009 03:39PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I would contend that people should look critically at their atheism...

Point of interest!

Looking critically at atheism isn't really an option - you critically at religion - and if none of them stack up you're an atheist.

EDIT: cross-posted with Robindch!

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 04:48PM

robindch wrote: »

How seriously have you studied the Greek gods, or the Roman ones, or about Zoroaster, or the Hindu deities, the Norse gods or the Mayan deities, or all of the hundreds of animist religions of South America, Asia and Africa, and with a mind which is truly ready to accept them?

Sure why would he do that? Didn't you hear he was lucky enough to be born into the one true faith. If only we could all be so lucky

robindch wrote: »

Just going by percentages alone, I'd imagine that you reject the existence of at least as many deities as any atheist does, and probably with far more passion than any atheist would.

Indeed. Taking a look at the definition of atheism:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

You lack belief in at least as many gods as us and in your studies of other religions you surely learned of a lot more than we've ever even heard of only to go on and not believe in any of them. I think you should look critically at your own lack of belief in gods Jakkass before you tell us that we should look critically at ours.

Goduznt Xzst · 06-10-2009 04:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think I didn't ask questions about Christianity when I was in the middle of seeking it? Questioning Christianity doesn't always end in rejection.

Car Salesman: "Ok well first off, here we have the 4 door Sedan in Red"
Christian: "hmm I have some questions about the millage and the return policy"
Car Salesman: "Sure, if you'll just follow me into the Offi..."
Christian: "Heres my money"
Car Salesman: "Eh... sorry... what?"
Christian: "I want to drive the car now"
Car Salesman: "But I haven't answered your questions yet? You haven't even seen any of the 100's of other cars I have in my lot?"
Christian: "Oh, silly me, you must have misunderstood me. I just wanted to let you know that I have questions, I don't require any real answers to them to make a decision. Do you take cash or cheque?"

philologos · 06-10-2009 04:58PM

robindch wrote: »

How seriously have you studied the Greek gods, or the Roman ones, or about Zoroaster, or the Hindu deities, the Norse gods or the Mayan deities, or all of the hundreds of animist religions of South America, Asia and Africa, and with a mind which is truly ready to accept them?

I'm studying about the Greek panthenon at present, and I hope to do Chinese philosophy in my course next year. Don't worry, I'll be reading up about them

robindch wrote: »

Just going by percentages alone, I'd imagine that you reject the existence of at least as many deities as any atheist does, and probably with far more passion than any atheist would.

More passion? Interesting, but doubtful. I generally don't delve into criticizing other faiths unless I have adequately researched it first. If I do delve, I generally do so in the company of members of those faiths and ask to be corrected if I am wrong.

I'm far more interested in listening, and thinking about how to put forward my own point of view in respect to religion. If anyone provides me with information about their faith, I generally read it out of curiosity.

Turtwig · 06-10-2009 04:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think this is isolated to your particular case?

I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by this..

What makes you think I didn't ask questions about Christianity when I was in the middle of seeking it? Questioning Christianity doesn't always end in rejection.

I never said that you never questioned it.

I would contend that people should look critically at their atheism, or their secular worldview, but this seems to be rarely proposed.

I would contend that people should look critically at their theism, or their religious worldview, but this seems to be rarely proposed.:P

Anyhu, I HATE parts of the atheistic world view, I often wish I could go back to being the Christian I was but I can't : Religions offer me far more reasons and comfort but that doesn't mean they are true though, and it's the truth I'm after and to be honest I love the search for it to bits:o

You can make whatever assumptions you want about how much or how little I have questioned my faith, it's ultimately baseless.

Really, you deny the idea of common sense being wrong, you denied the idea of emotions making our decisions...baseless? Come on! At least address these issues..

philologos · 06-10-2009 05:01PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I would contend that people should look critically at their theism, or their religious worldview, but this seems to be rarely proposed.:P

It's proposed quite regularly, but it is particularly rare in the reverse. Most people are more interested in criticizing other worldviews than thinking of their own. This is equally applicable to atheists as well as Christians.

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyhu, I HATE parts of the atheistic world view, I often wish I could go back to being the Christian I was but I can't : Religions offer me far more reasons and comfort but that doesn't mean they are true though, and it's the truth I'm after and to be honest I love the search for it to bits:o

It's about the truth that I have searched also.

Malty_T wrote: »

Really, you deny the idea of common sense being wrong, you denied the idea of emotions making our decisions...baseless? Come on! At least address these issues and then I might admit that you questioned your faith, but as far as I'm concerned you haven't.

No, I haven't. I'm denying the notion that it is always wrong, or even most likely to be wrong. I believe I could be wrong, but it is very unlikely that I am given what case can be made for God's existence. This assumes that all faith is made on common sense assumptions though.

Dave: Read the full quote:

I would contend that people should look critically at their atheism, or their secular worldview, but this seems to be rarely proposed.

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 05:06PM

Jakkass, based on your position that common sense is not "always wrong, or even most likely to be wrong", could you use your usually right common sense to answer this question please:

Do you accept that, had you been born to different parents in another part of the world, you would most likely now believe in their version of god (or gods) as strongly as you do in the protestant version of Judeo-Christian God or do you think that you're not like the other 95% of people who end up accepting the religion of their parents as the one true faith, that you're one of the tiny few lucky enough to actually be born into the one true faith?

Turtwig · 06-10-2009 05:08PM

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I haven't. I'm denying the notion that it is always wrong, or even most likely to be wrong. I believe I could be wrong, but it is very unlikely that I am given what case can be made for God's existence. This assumes that all faith is made on common sense assumptions though.

I never said that it was always wrong, or even most likely to be wrong. I just said it's emotion that makes most of our decisions for us and that's something we need to be aware of because it can mean our brains get closed off so easily; conscious raising if you like.

What case? All you have is a series of books that were written several thousand years ago, underwent several translations and are based solely on eye witness accounts. Case closed:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 05:11PM

And answer me this please:

There are three boxes in front of you. One contains a cheque for a million euro and the other two contain nothing. I know which box is which.

I give you the opportunity to choose a box and then I take away one of the others.

I then give you the opportunity to either stick with your choice or change your mind to the remaining box

Should you stick with your choice or change your mind and why?

Turtwig · 06-10-2009 05:14PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And answer me this please:

There are three boxes in front of you. One contains a cheque for a million euro and the other two contain nothing. I know which box is which.

I give you the opportunity to choose a box and then I take away one of the others.

I then give you the opportunity to either stick with your choice or change your mind to the remaining box

Should you stick with your choice or change your mind and why?

CHANGE YOUR MIND!
CHANGE YOUR MIND!
CHANGE YOUR MIND!
CHANGE YOUR MIND!

:D

Oh wait.....
the million isn't real...
and this wasn't even directed at me:mad::mad:

DAMMITT!

robindch · 06-10-2009 05:26PM

Jakkass wrote: »

If anyone provides me with information about their faith, I generally read it out of curiosity.

Mild entertainment in my case. Usually anyway.

But do you really read this stuff with your mind kept sufficiently open that you can receive the message of the real god speaking through the scriptures of the Norse Epics, for example?

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 05:38PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm far more interested in listening, and thinking about how to put forward my own point of view in respect to religion. If anyone provides me with information about their faith, I generally read it out of curiosity.

People who want to tell you about their religion rarely want to hear about yours - Terry Pratchett

Naz_st · 06-10-2009 05:51PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And answer me this please:

There are three boxes in front of you. One contains a cheque for a million euro and the other two contain nothing. I know which box is which.

I give you the opportunity to choose a box and then I take away one of the others.

I then give you the opportunity to either stick with your choice or change your mind to the remaining box

Should you stick with your choice or change your mind and why?

Malty_T wrote: »

CHANGE YOUR MIND!

I'm not sure you've phrased this correctly. I think in order for there to be an advantage to changing your mind, instead of taking away a box you would have to open the box and reveal nothing in it for the probability of switching to increase (or at least specify that the box being taken away has nothing in it).

It seems a minor change, but it makes a difference since as phrased your question doesn't make sense...

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 05:59PM

Naz_st wrote: »

I'm not sure you've phrased this correctly. I think in order for there to be an advantage to changing your mind, instead of taking away a box you would have to open the box and reveal nothing in it for the probability of switching to increase (or at least specify that the box being taken away has nothing in it).

It seems a minor change, but it makes a difference since as phrased your question doesn't make sense...

I said at the start that I know which box is which. That tells you that there's nothing in the box I'm taking away because if I took the box with the million euro in it then it wouldn't matter in the slightest if you stuck with your choice or changed your mind, either way you're not getting the money :P

Naz_st · 06-10-2009 06:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said at the start that I know which box is which. That tells you that there's nothing in the box I'm taking away because if I took the box with the million euro in it then it wouldn't matter in the slightest if you stuck with your choice or changed your mind, either way you're not getting the money :P

Yeah - that was my point! (Hence the not making sense bit!)

Well, the fact that you were removing an empty box wasn't clear (to me anyway). It's such a tricky and counter-intuitive problem anyway, no need to make it harder!

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 06:06PM

Naz_st wrote: »

Yeah - that was my point! (Hence the not making sense bit!)

Well, the fact that you were removing an empty box wasn't clear (to me anyway). It's such a tricky and counter-intuitive problem anyway, no need to make it harder!

But you can see now that you can deduce that the box I'm taking is empty from the fact that I know which box is which right?

Naz_st · 06-10-2009 06:25PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But you can see now that you can deduce that the box I'm taking is empty from the fact that I know which box is which right?

Well I didn't want to get into a debate about it since it's pretty OT, but since you asked, no, there's no logical reason to deduce that from the problem as stated. Unless you specify that the box being removed is empty, there's no advantage to switching, since you could be removing the million dollar box.

Anyway - it was probably just me who thought that was confusing, so I'll shut up about it now...

Sam Vimes · 06-10-2009 06:29PM

Naz_st wrote: »

Well I didn't want to get into a debate about it since it's pretty OT, but since you asked, no, there's no logical reason to deduce that from the problem as stated. Unless you specify that the box being removed is empty, there's no advantage to switching, since you could be removing the million dollar box.

Anyway - it was probably just me who thought that was confusing, so I'll shut up about it now...

Ah no we can't let you shut up now

I didn't explicitly specify that the box was empty but if you don't assume it is then not only is there no advantage to switching but there's also no advantage to not switching because you're going to lose either way, your chances of winning have dropped to zero. If the box is not empty the whole problem becomes pointless

Naz_st · 06-10-2009 06:33PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah no we can't let you shut up now

I didn't explicitly specify that the box was empty but if you don't assume it is then not only is there no advantage to switching but there's also no advantage to not switching because you're going to lose either way, your chances of winning have dropped to zero. If the box is not empty the whole problem becomes pointless

Well, not unless you happened to have chosen the correct box first time and decide not to switch. (Sorry couldn't help it!)

Anyway, what you just posted was pretty much my point.

Moving on...

MagicMarker · 06-10-2009 06:39PM

Someone's been reading Derren Brown:)

Or at least that's where I heard that anecdote. If you have three choices then you're chances of getting the right box is 1 in 3, if one empty box is taken away your odds change to 2 in 3, provided you change your mind. So basically, always change your mind.

Turtwig · 06-10-2009 06:47PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Someone's been reading Derren Brown:)

Or at least that's where I heard that anecdote. If you have three choices then you're chances of getting the right box is 1 in 3, if one empty box is taken away your odds change to 2 in 3, provided you change your mind. So basically, always change your mind.

Arghhhh, You ruined it!:mad:

Why do People Believe in God(s)?

Comments