# Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965 "2010-06-21T07:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/521 "2010-07-15T15:17:10Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > “And I have no evidence it was designed”, would also be a logical conclusion to draw, according to you? For future reference, here is how it works-You gather all available information, then make an informed opinion based on that information, always being open to changing said informed opinion when more information becomes available. In the case of your “collider”, we have available the name of the designer, the plans used, and filmed footage of it being built. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/522 "2010-07-15T15:17:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Save this kind of comment for the Pit if you have to say it it all. Don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. If you think someone _is_ trolling then please report the post. If I breached established forum rules with that, then I apologise. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/523 "2010-07-15T15:18:54Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > Well then, if this isn’t elegant and functional: > > [http://www.alldivamedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/shakira.jpg](http://www.alldivamedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/shakira.jpg) > > I don’t know what is. We don’t disagree on that. But we might disagree on whether the process that allows for genetic information to be copied, and sometimes mutated, is designed. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/524 "2010-07-15T15:20:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > For future reference, here is how it works-You gather all available information, then make an informed opinion based on that information, always being open to changing said informed opinion when more information becomes available. In the case of your “collider”, we have available the name of the designer, the plans used, and filmed footage of it being built. Thank you for proving my point. Failing to “understand how something works” is actually not the catch-all excluder for deciding whether something was designed. _EDIT_ But I actually understand a lot about how atoms work, so I can only assume you are referring to the fact that I have not observed the creation of atoms, and it’s that which I don’t understand (by created I mean, by a sentient entity or otherwise). ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/525 "2010-07-15T15:21:17Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > We don’t disagree on that. > > But we might disagree on whether the process that allows for genetic information to be copied, and sometimes mutated, is designed. Why go through the trouble? If you’re creating stuff wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “poof” and have the world exist as it is? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/526 "2010-07-15T15:23:22Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > _EDIT_ But I actually understand a lot about how atoms work, so I can only assume you are referring to the fact that I have not observed the creation of atoms, and it’s that which I don’t understand (by created I mean, by a sentient entity or otherwise). You see, there’s the problem. You make unwarranted assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/527 "2010-07-15T15:24:07Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > Why go through the trouble? If you’re creating stuff wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “poof” and have the world exist as it is? Depends what your goal is, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/528 "2010-07-15T15:25:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You see, there’s the problem. You make unwarranted assumptions. Alright then.. “But Czarcasm, I do understand fairly well (in terms of modern understanding) how atoms work, and I still think they look, and show traits that I have only seen arise from, creation and design”. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/529 "2010-07-15T15:29:08Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > None. Don’t you see a problem with that? None of your life experiences include things that looked designed not having a designer (which is faulty reasoning since it assumes all of the non-man made things you’ve encountered have been designed). Because of this, you conclude everything that looks designed must have a designer. None of your life experiences include designers that haven’t had a beginning, don’t need space to reside in, and don’t need time to make things, but you’re willing to make an exception and conclude this designer exists anyway. Why conclude that your first premise holds true when you don’t have the same standard for your second? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/530 "2010-07-15T15:41:00Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Atoms and energy look designed to me. What, exactly, have I “made up”? There seems to be a disconnect centered around this statement, between you and the other folks posting here - you claiming evidence of design, the others here calling your statements an argument from ignorance. I think I see the discrepancy, so if you’ll allow me to butt in… When you say that atoms (and energy? really?) looked “designed,” what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with any explanations of their existence, other than a designer doing it. That’s what people are inferring from your statement, because they (and I) can’t imagine what it would mean to look “designed” other than “I can’t think of a way this could happen spontaneously.” If you mean something else when you say it “looks designed,” then please elaborate. That’s why everyone here is telling you that it’s an argument from ignorance - saying that you can’t come up with another explanation is just that. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/531 "2010-07-15T15:43:26Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > There seems to be a disconnect centered around this statement, between you and the other folks posting here - you claiming evidence of design, the others here calling your statements an argument from ignorance. I think I see the discrepancy, so if you’ll allow me to butt in… > > When you say that atoms (and energy? really?) looked “designed,” what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with any explanations of their existence, other than a designer doing it. That’s what people are inferring from your statement, because they (and I) can’t imagine what it would mean to look “designed” other than “I can’t think of a way this could happen spontaneously.” > > If you mean something else when you say it “looks designed,” then please elaborate. > > That’s why everyone here is telling you that it’s an argument from ignorance - saying that you can’t come up with another explanation is just that. Thank you Curt. I was just in the middle of trying to post the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/532 "2010-07-15T15:49:43Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > In other words: > > When I provide some evidence for my claim, it’s **insufficient**. > When Czarcasm provides no evidence for his claim, it’s **sufficient**. You’ve provided exactly NO evidence for your claim. “I think the universe looks designed” is not evidence, it’s a conclusion, arrived at in the absence of evidence. And when we ask for evidence, you just repeat “I think it looks designed.” And you accuse _me_ of “circular reasoning”. :rolleyes: > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Let me explain the circular reasoning of your logic. > > **Me** : Hey, I am inclined to believe that an immaterial deity designed and created the universe, let me lay out clearly what I think is the evidence. > **Czarcasm** : The problem with this scenario, Kelly, is that existence outside of space and time is impossible. > **Me** : Really? How so? > **Czarcasm** : The burden of proof lies with you. > **Me:** Lies with me how? If the problem with my reasoning is that existence outside of space and time is impossible, then just show the evidence that such existence is impossible. > **Czarcasm** : Nope. > **Random Contributor** : Hey Kelly, show some evidence already! > **Me** : Huh? I did. I laid it out clearly, go and read it. We’re passed that point, we’re up to the bit where Czarcasm offered his rebuttal. Unfortunately his rebuttal was merely an unbacked assertion, so I’m just asking him to show the evidence for his claim, otherwise, _it’s not really a rebuttal at all_. > **Random Contributor** : It’s up to you show the evidence, Kelly! > > ad infinitum. I guess I’m “Random Contributor” in the above. Nice. I didn’t realise this was a private conversation. Ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy? Looks like you’re using the “Random Contributor” jibe to dismiss what I said, rather than to actually address it. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/533 "2010-07-15T15:55:44Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Alright then.. > > “But Czarcasm, I do understand fairly well (in terms of modern understanding) how atoms work, and I still think they look, and show traits that I have only seen arise from, creation and design”. Well then, show us something **that’s been designed** that acts, looks, or in some other way resembles the weirdness that is an [electron](http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/electron.html). [QUOTE=Bad Astronomy] A physicist named Heisenberg worked out the math of this, and discovered that the more you know about one aspect of a particle (say, its position in space) the less you can know about some other aspect (like its velocity). The closer you look at something, the harder it is to pin down. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/534 "2010-07-15T16:16:15Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sure anyone can. That’s part of why myths persist. My family has it’s personal ghost stories doesn’t yours? No. But we’ve never lived in any spooky mansions. > [@](#): > > The fact that science is relatively new is part of my point. Getting more information to more average people is much younger than that. It will take time and effort to educate and replace wishful thinking with more critical thought. We have to choose what method is most effective. > > Because it will take time and effort we have to decide how to approach it. IMHO I think we can approach specific beliefs with gradual success because of the information we have about those beliefs. By being persistent in presenting that information we will gradually create an atmosphere where more people question. I think it is easier to teach rationalism consistently. It takes less time to show how to go about approaching a problem rationally than teaching one set of rules for “science,” another set for astrology and yet another set for religion. Plus, it is not like there is only one person doing this. Every teacher should be enrolled. > [@](#): > > IMO it’s about valuing the truth over myth and recognizing how we are connected and how our actions and choices affect the larger us. It cracks me up how people who claim to value the truth are so unwilling to actually consider anything that challenges their world view. How do you know what the truth is if you’re not willing to seek it, and at least listen and consider other information and views. Larger us? That’s either trivially true - we are of course connected to others all over the world, and increasingly so, or odd, if it means we are connected to some sort of overmind. But I agree we should sample all sorts of stuff, especially if we have good analysis tools. I’m far more skeptical of UFOs and ESP from having read pro-saucer books and Rhine when I was a kid. > [@](#): > > But I digress. I think by deciding which myths to focus on we stand a better chance of progress. This goes hand in hand with recognizing the limits of our knowledge and recognizing that every belief system , even the more rational ones, are subject to change. We can’t demonstrate that god doesn’t exist or that nothing exists beyond this mortal life with certainty so let’s acknowledge that we don’t know , claim our right to our own belief system and allow others the same privilege. Focus on other details of belief to encourage reasoning and the importance of embracing the truth. I’ve always found that I understand something much better when I understand the framework behind it, not just facts. Doesn’t history make more sense when you understand the forces causing the events, and not just the dates of the events? Focusing on one “myth” is like teaching dates. Let’s focus on the process, and the myths will take care of themselves - and if someone who gets the process can support the truth of what others call a myth, so much the better. Principles like the immutability of time fall by the wayside given the evidence - I don’t see how the principles of rationality will, not in our universe at least. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/535 "2010-07-15T16:27:30Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > And I say it isn’t. I say that studying the atom reveals one of the most beautifully elegant structures with seemingly limitless functionality that some would argue you’ll ever see. Given that all of my life experience has taught me that you can’t produce things 1/1000th as elegant and functional as an atom without a designer and creator, the existence of the designer and creator becomes inferred. And believing in things based on inference is nothing to discard, unless you discard the existence of dark matter and dark energy. If you believe all elegant things are designed, then you must believe all snowflakes are individually designed also. Or do you accept that their structure and beauty can come from simple, non-designed, means. If you don’t like that example, try dropping some oil in colored water and seeing that “design.” There is a twofold way of discounting design. First, see if you notice a designer. Second, see if there is a natural, undesigned, way for the structure to exist. Before Darwin we could be excused for thinking that man and animals were created. After, we have a simple way of the complexity of these things to come into being, and it seems you even accept this. You’ll have to explain why DNA could not “evolve” from simpler replicating molecules - as for errors in replication, that not happening would have to be explained, given the known sources of mutation. It is easy to give design as an answer if you stop looking for the actual answer. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/536 "2010-07-15T16:55:52Z")
Given that Kelly has vanished, I infer that his head exploded. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/537 "2010-07-18T11:39:25Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > They look designed to me. What other conclusion should I be drawing other than there’s a designer? It could be like the ink blot test or people seeing the Virgin Mary or Jesus etc, in pancakes etc. it is a matter of chance, and the way some people like to see things. A Hindu doesn’t see Mary in a pancake but a believer seems to. Belief is just that belief, and notice the word LIE is central to be\_Lie-f. Does that make belief a lie…no. it is a matter of one’s perspective. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965/538 "2010-07-18T12:49:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No. But we’ve never lived in any spooky mansions. Neither did we. I meant larger extended family. A couple of my aunts had ghost stories that made it through the family. > [@](#): > > I think it is easier to teach rationalism consistently. It takes less time to show how to go about approaching a problem rationally than teaching one set of rules for “science,” another set for astrology and yet another set for religion. Plus, it is not like there is only one person doing this. Every teacher should be enrolled. I certainly agree in the sense that we must learn to value the truth and how that is connected to facts, scientific facts. historic evidence. Most religions are already taught to value the truth, and then still stubornly hang on to myth. I also agree that basic logic and reasoning is the same throughout the sciences and philosophy for that matter. > [@](#): > > I’ve always found that I understand something much better when I understand the framework behind it, not just facts. Doesn’t history make more sense when you understand the forces causing the events, and not just the dates of the events? Focusing on one “myth” is like teaching dates. Let’s focus on the process, and the myths will take care of themselves - and if someone who gets the process can support the truth of what others call a myth, so much the better. Principles like the immutability of time fall by the wayside given the evidence - I don’t see how the principles of rationality will, not in our universe at least. I enjoy understanding the framework. Sometimes the framework is revealed as repeated human behaviour patterns. When I read “The Religions of Man” I began to understand how mankind , regardless of culture, would take a teaching and a teacher and grow it into a religion adding myth and “divine authority” as they went. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement. When you teach history you wind up focusing on one era or event at a time but while doing that you also teach how to appraoch history. The same with science. I’m suggesting we focus on the myths that we have the most conclusice evidence about , and in the process of appraoching those we include that any committment to the truth must include scientific facts. I think it’s important for believers and non believers to understand that a human belief system is made up of intellect and emotion. The emotion side isn’t a negative but it must be recognized and considered so we might know when emotional attachment and need has had too much sway. Let’s look at it this way. I’m suggesting we teach people to be more realsitic and rational by carefully choosing what myth we examine as a method of teaching rationalism and critical thinking. If you appraoch a myth where the evidence is closest to undeniable you stand a better chance. From my own experience I noticed my emotional attachment to certain details. It took time to let go. I think if you go after basic god belief and the possibility of an afterlife the door will be closed fairly quickly largely due to the fact that we can’t show conclusively that those things don’t exist. The desire for it to be so will attach itself to that detail. If you appraoch other less significant myths where the evidence is much more conclusive you have a better chance of being considered and the opportunity to teach rational thinking continues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-beliefs/543965.md?page=26)