Why do people still believe in God?

[SentientMeat]

@o-w

Not futile, but frequently inaccurate and prone to errors of interpretation and bias, as a brief survey of its history will attest (Repressed Memories, anyone?)

Just as any science (or even epistemology) is.

you cannot demonstrate your experience of similarity to me, and I cannot demonstrate my experience of distinction to you because our consciousnesses are closed to one another.

Just as your pet’s life is unliveable to my pet or your PC’s computations are uncomputable to my PC, and yet we are not debating the scientific explanations and conclusions of biology and computation. Language is the protocol by which we share our experiences (ie. temporal brain configurations). The heterophenomenological method is really no less scientific in its demonstrations than other fields on which the health of you and your loved ones depend.

just as it’s up to me to decide if either entity constitutes an explanation.

…or, at least, a mode of explanation even if the details are still uncertain, like modern evolutionary biology. To tend towards rejection of both natural and supernatural modes is arguably no ‘decision’ at all.

Correlation is not causation.

I disagree: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. After all, a cause always does correlate (but not necessarily vice versa) - otherwise, it wouldn’t be the cause! In the computer case, one is entirely justified in believing that particular correlative factor (the activity) to be the cause, yes?

Ramachandran’s point is that observing neural activity cannot tell you whether an “experience of God” (or any other experience for that matter) is a cause of said neural activity or a result. If you want to take a crack at refuting Ramachandran, I’d honestly be interested your attempt.

And Christmas presents cannot tell you whether Santa Claus is a cause or a result of what your parents tell you about their origin. I’m not refuting Rama - I’m just reductio-ing the same valid reasoning to situations which are clearly absurdans in everyday life. We do not hold every possibility concurrently, but dismiss extraordinary or supernatural causes all the time. Some people haven’t yet done this for this particular experience/neural activity link, even though they clearly do when considering, say, the link between ‘strange’ experience and LSD, or strange experience and altitude, g forces, magnetic fields or minor strokes. I’d suggest the observed activity does suggest quite a lot if you set some stock by the general principle of parsimony.

No more remarkable than the handful of reports by otherwise intelligent, sober individuals that Borley Rectory caused them to experience a ghost.

Which is very scientifically interesting in itself. Of course I’m not saying the ghost is ‘real’, just as I don’t say the God is ‘real’. But if there is clearly some heterophenomenon there (ie. lots of sober sceptics say they feel weird), that is a datum requiring an explanation: I still wouldn’t require most people to feel weird before it piqued my curiosity, only a number who had never had such feelings before anywhere else.

[other-wise]

@SentientMeat

Just as any science (or even epistemology) is.

I’ve been arguing that some methods of experimental inquiry are less accurate and more prone to errors of interpretation and bias than others. Given that, I have a hard time interpreting your statement as anything other than the suggestion that all scientific experiments are equally inaccurate and prone to errors and bias.

If that is the case, since I know you subscribe to a scientific epistemology, don’t you already accept invisible, unproven, causative entities like the “id” or the “subconscious”?

The heterophenomenological method is really no less scientific in its demonstrations than other fields on which the health of you and your loved ones depend.

… just less accurate and more prone to errors of interpretation and bias (in my opinion). Hence, heterophenomenological data cannot be relied upon for the formation of any definitive conclusions. And when investigating a subjective “experience of God”, what other data is there?

just as it’s up to me to decide if either entity constitutes an explanation.

…or, at least, a mode of explanation even if the details are still uncertain, like modern evolutionary biology. To tend towards rejection of both natural and supernatural modes is arguably no ‘decision’ at all.

Isn’t that up to me to decide?

I disagree: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. After all, a cause always does correlate (but not necessarily vice versa) - otherwise, it wouldn’t be the cause!

Yargh. I hope we don’t spin off into a semantic disagreement, but I’m sticking to my guns here: Causation is not correlation; once you’ve laid claim to a cause, all else is correlation.

In the computer case, one is entirely justified in believing that particular correlative factor (the activity) to be the cause, yes?

Let’s explore this a bit. You say that you’re entirely justified in saying that the phenomena on a computer monitor is caused by the hardware. What if someone else claims that the phenomena on a computer monitor is caused by the programmer? Since hardware and programmers are each necessary, but not sufficient, for phenomena to appear on a computer monitor, how can we justify the claim of causality for one but not the other?

We do not hold every possibility concurrently, but dismiss extraordinary or supernatural causes all the time. Some people haven’t yet done this for this particular experience/neural activity link, even though they clearly do when considering, say, the link between ‘strange’ experience and LSD, or strange experience and altitude, g forces, magnetic fields or minor strokes. I’d suggest the observed activity does suggest quite a lot if you set some stock by the general principle of parsimony.

There’s still some whooshing going on. There is little controversy over the ability of, say, LSD to affect neural activity, and for neural activity to qualitatively affect experience. There is great controversy over whether experience qua experience can be reduced to (or is identical with) neural activity, and whether neural activity is the sole causal factor of experience (and, of course, parsimony is in the eye of the beholder).

Which is very scientifically interesting in itself. Of course I’m not saying the ghost is ‘real’, just as I don’t say the God is ‘real’. But if there is clearly some heterophenomenon there (ie. lots of sober sceptics say they feel weird), that is a datum requiring an explanation: I still wouldn’t require most people to feel weird before it piqued my curiosity, only a number who had never had such feelings before anywhere else.

Interesting and curiosity-piquing… well, yeah. But demonstrative of nothing, just like the data on TMS and putative religious experience.

[SentientMeat]

Actually, I think we’re well and truly mired in mere semantics in toto here, o-w. The programmer (eg. a human, or a blind watchmaker) causes the activity and leaves, then the activity causes the monitor phenomena. And the demonstration of “something interesting” is the people saying stuff.

Back after Xmas.

[cosmosdan]

@Roderick Femm

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the definition of what faith is.

Faith defined by a dictionary. There’s nothing there about wonder and awe about our existence.

Appreciation of the majesty and scope and wonder of the vastness of the universe compared to my own personal scope of experience (not necessarily a unique place in that universe) has nothing to do with faith. It’s simply a recognition of one aspect of reality. I thought this was what I was saying before, but apparently I wasn’t clear.

We may disagree. I was going by this definition.

Heb 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Everyday theists and atheists make choices without knowing exactly what the outcome will be. We make those choices based on some belief system as to what choices will result in the best outcome. That is faith.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I’m with Roderick. This is not faith. Something bigger than ourselves? I’ve got family, country, company, and my field, to mention a few. Humanity also. They all exist.

Our unique place in the universe? We know it is a big universe, and whether or not we are the only intelligent beings in it, intelligence is rare compared to the size of space (which is really, really big.) It’s all science to me.

Now if you mean that we must have some degree of faith that what we see as reality really is, again I disagree. It is a working hypothesis. Maybe we are, like Ed Fredkin suggested, inside a big simulation, with Planck time being the simulation step time. That would indeed be interesting. I don’t have faith that this is not true, I just don’t see any evidence for it, and anyway it is untestable, given good enough programmers.

Could you be more specific on why you think some of these things represent faith?

You make choices based in part by sensory input and what you have learned and see as reality {same as theists} Another part of that decision making process is some belief system. Theists believe in some concept of God as well as other things. Atheists have a belief system and choose accordingly. Do you believe honesty is the best policy, rather than dishonesty? Do you believe generousity is better than selfishness? etc. etc. It’s a belief system that requires acts of faith.

[other-wise]

@SentientMeat

Actually, I think we’re well and truly mired in mere semantics in toto here, o-w.

Ah, well… it wouldn’t exactly be the first time.

The programmer (eg. a human, or a blind watchmaker) causes the activity and leaves, then the activity causes the monitor phenomena.

Since the phenomena on a computer monitor is determined by the program (as opposed to the hardware, which merely implements the program), I just really don’t see how the programmer leaving removes his status as causal agent. The same logic would force me to conclude that the telescopic image of an extinct star was not caused by the star.

Back after Xmas.

Cheers!

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Everyday theists and atheists make choices without knowing exactly what the outcome will be. We make those choices based on some belief system as to what choices will result in the best outcome. That is faith.

Aha! And thus the place to find the highest density of people of faith is the racetrack.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

You make choices based in part by sensory input and what you have learned and see as reality {same as theists} Another part of that decision making process is some belief system. Theists believe in some concept of God as well as other things. Atheists have a belief system and choose accordingly. Do you believe honesty is the best policy, rather than dishonesty? Do you believe generousity is better than selfishness? etc. etc. It’s a belief system that requires acts of faith.

My Mirriam Websters, after going through the god-based definitions, gives a definition of faith as

@Merriam Webster's

1. firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2. complete trust
3. something that is believed, esp. with strong conviction

Now they give as the first definition of proof as cogency of evidence that establishes something as a fact, so for def. 1 I presume they do not mean mathematical proof. Thus we can consider the sun coming up in the morning as being proved by this definition, and believing in this is not a matter of faith.
I think religious faith falls quite well into def. 1.

So, faith is more than a belief system, especially when one’s beliefs are tentative, as mine are. (I’ve changed several often enough to learn this.)

Honesty the best policy? Like when your wife asks you if these pants make her look fat? Not always! Generousity better than selfishness? Not always either. There is a balance. My working out of these things is on a case by case basis, and is not driven by strong beliefs one way or another, and certainly not faith, since the balance can change based on the results of doing it one way or another.

A faithful religious person is quite immune to evidence against, and very immune to lack of evidence for. A person with faith in generousity might keep lending money to a friend and never get repaid, and never rethink his position.

And the definition of faith from Hebrews is a bit out of date, since we have evidence of things not seen (like radio waves) all the time.

[spingears]

@Floyd Remora

Well?

Could it be that people consider that better than the worldly alternatives?

Well?

[Floyd_Remora]

@spingears

Could it be that people consider that better than the worldly alternatives?

Well?

Well what?

[Polycarp]

@Floyd Remora

Well what?

:dubious:

[Floyd_Remora]

@Polycarp

:dubious:

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Now they give as the first definition of proof as cogency of evidence that establishes something as a fact, so for def. 1 I presume they do not mean mathematical proof. Thus we can consider the sun coming up in the morning as being proved by this definition, and believing in this is not a matter of faith.
I think religious faith falls quite well into def. 1.

Agreed

So, faith is more than a belief system, especially when one’s beliefs are tentative, as mine are. (I’ve changed several often enough to learn this.)

More, yes, but our changing belief system is a component of our faith.
Hopefully any belief system will change somewhat as we grow as people, if the individual is at all motivated toward growth. Many Christians will tell you that the details of their own faith and belief system has changed.

Honesty the best policy? Like when your wife asks you if these pants make her look fat? Not always! Generousity better than selfishness? Not always either. There is a balance. My working out of these things is on a case by case basis, and is not driven by strong beliefs one way or another, and certainly not faith, since the balance can change based on the results of doing it one way or another.

Balance of course but in general most folks don’t start from scratch at every situation. They develop behavior and choice patterns based on what they want and what they believe to yeild the best results. That is a belief system even if it’s fairly automatic and we don’t think of it as such. It is also a form of faith.

A faithful religious person is quite immune to evidence against, and very immune to lack of evidence for.

Some are. I’m not sure why. Part of it at least is being sheltered within a certain group think. Other’s like myself, are willing to examine the evidence available. To me the point is learning the truth about us as people. In order to do that I have to be open to the truth where ever I find it.

What I’m getting at is the more I look at this and think about it, I don’t think there’s as big a difference between the thought process of religious faith and what any atheist or agnostic does. It seems that the semantics and the focus is different but the elements of a belief system and a form of faith in that belief system is pretty much the same.

A person with faith in generousity might keep lending money to a friend and never get repaid, and never rethink his position.

You don’t have to be a gullible fool to be honest, and generous.

And the definition of faith from Hebrews is a bit out of date, since we have evidence of things not seen (like radio waves) all the time.

I don’t think it’s out of date, nor is it refering to things like radio waves. It’s very similar to your own definition 1.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Some are. I’m not sure why. Part of it at least is being sheltered within a certain group think. Other’s like myself, are willing to examine the evidence available. To me the point is learning the truth about us as people. In order to do that I have to be open to the truth where ever I find it.

What I’m getting at is the more I look at this and think about it, I don’t think there’s as big a difference between the thought process of religious faith and what any atheist or agnostic does. It seems that the semantics and the focus is different but the elements of a belief system and a form of faith in that belief system is pretty much the same.

Perhaps it would be helpful to examine why so many people who accept evolution object to someone saying we have “faith” in it. There must be some distinction between acting on evidence alone, taking risks, and going beyond evidence to act on faith. I’d say an atheist acts on the (lack of) evidence pretty much completely. A theist strawman version of an atheist has us closing our eyes to the obvious evidence or proof of a god. A good illustration of this is “The Last Battle” where some set of the heathens, who got close to salvation, claimed they did not see Aslan or anything that was going on, and thus did not get saved. (This may not be exactly right.)

Belief can either be tentative, which can change easily, or more solid, going into faith, which takes quite a shock to break. I can believe based on evidence, which is scientific and tentative belief, or believe beyond the evidence, which is faith.

Some religious people base their belief on what they see as evidence, so I’m not saying religious beliefs only are those without justification. Politicians often have unexamined faith in a position. 'm sure many brought up in the USSR had faith in Communism. But I’ve seen very few atheists with faith.

I’m not sure I’d even call your position one based on faith, since you do seem to base it on evidence and are willing to reexamine it.

[OliverTwistofLime]

God has all kinds of meaning to all kinds of people…for example in my opinion only if the word God equates with whatever is determined to have innitiated matter, energy and the like, I call that God.

If you add words like free will…love…compassion…all knowing…answers or listens to prayer, count me out.

Therefore I think a definition should be set first before the OP’s question is fairly answered.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Perhaps it would be helpful to examine why so many people who accept evolution object to someone saying we have “faith” in it. There must be some distinction between acting on evidence alone, taking risks, and going beyond evidence to act on faith.

I agree there’s a difference between actions based on solid evidence and actions based on faith. What I propose is that most people make decisions based on some combination of evidence, feeling, personal preference, and their own value system. Acting on what you believe, such as your own value system, is at least in part an exercise of faith even if it isn’t religious faith.

I’d say an atheist acts on the (lack of) evidence pretty much completely. A theist strawman version of an atheist has us closing our eyes to the obvious evidence or proof of a god. A good illustration of this is “The Last Battle” where some set of the heathens, who got close to salvation, claimed they did not see Aslan or anything that was going on, and thus did not get saved. (This may not be exactly right.)

Haven’t seen it. I can’t agree that atheists act on a lack of evidence. Atheists act on whatever their value system is. What they believe to be right or wrong. What they see as loss or gain. Believers too. same thing. For Atheists the question of “What does God want?” never enters into it, unless you count being annoyed because others are asking it.

Belief can either be tentative, which can change easily, or more solid, going into faith, which takes quite a shock to break. I can believe based on evidence, which is scientific and tentative belief, or believe beyond the evidence, which is faith.

I’m not sure I understand why you think faith is more solid.

Some religious people base their belief on what they see as evidence, so I’m not saying religious beliefs only are those without justification. Politicians often have unexamined faith in a position. 'm sure many brought up in the USSR had faith in Communism. But I’ve seen very few atheists with faith.

Not religious faith. What I’m saying is that we all operate on some kind of faith. It’s an unavoidable part of our humanity. The details of what we have faith in and why may vary but the essence of how it works mentally and emotionally is the same for theists and atheists.

I’m not sure I’d even call your position one based on faith, since you do seem to base it on evidence and are willing to reexamine it.

I’d call it faith only because I have some significant spiritual beliefs. My beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I expect they will continue to change and become more refined.

[Floyd_Remora]

@Voyager

I can believe based on evidence, which is scientific and tentative belief, or believe beyond the evidence, which is faith.

But unless you believe that everything we see is an illusion, you have to believe in some scientific facts because they’ve been proven to be true. “Believing beyond the evidence” is just wishful thinking.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I agree there’s a difference between actions based on solid evidence and actions based on faith. What I propose is that most people make decisions based on some combination of evidence, feeling, personal preference, and their own value system. Acting on what you believe, such as your own value system, is at least in part an exercise of faith even if it isn’t religious faith.

I think we just disagree that this is something that can reasonably be called faith here. I certainly agree that this is the way people act.

I’m not sure I understand why you think faith is more solid.

Because when belief is tentative, it dies not require such a reworking of the internal thought processes to change it.

Not religious faith. What I’m saying is that we all operate on some kind of faith. It’s an unavoidable part of our humanity. The details of what we have faith in and why may vary but the essence of how it works mentally and emotionally is the same for theists and atheists.

Faith can be considered the gap between belief and the evidence for the belief. If there is 99.99% chance that what we experience is reality, based on our experience, then there is little faith involved acting as if it was. If, on the other hand, your only evidence of god is third hand, there is a lot more faith in believing in god. Moses needed little faith, if the story were true.

However if you have to make a choice between two actions, and choose the one most probable, are you acting on faith? I don’t think so. You’d change your choice in a second if the odds change.

I’d call it faith only because I have some significant spiritual beliefs. My beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I expect they will continue to change and become more refined.

If one believes there is significant evidence for spiritual things, I’m not sure I’d consider believing in them faith. A guy being hoodwinked by a medium might think he was being very rational. A guy who has had an experience he cannot explain except supernaturally might not be working on faith either. So I think it is very personal.

[Voyager]

@Floyd Remora

But unless you believe that everything we see is an illusion, you have to believe in some scientific facts because they’ve been proven to be true. “Believing beyond the evidence” is just wishful thinking.

If you define faith as wishful thinking, I’m not going to argue. But very little has been proven - facts have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Floyd_Remora]

@Voyager

If you define faith as wishful thinking, I’m not going to argue. But very little has been proven - facts have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

When do you accept any given fact as proven? You could argue that the established laws of thermodynamics are wrong because it’s actually God doing something magical. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having faith, it just doesn’t produce facts in the way that science does.