Are Christians more gullible?

[wvernon]

Speaking of Christians being more gullible, I am reminded of Jesus who said to his disciples when sending them out,
[BIBLE] Matthew 10:16[/BIBLE]

As Christians, we must be wise to the world and wary that there are many false teachers and false doctrines in the world which would lead us astray from Christ if we are not careful.

 

[copernicus]

But they are evidence of something.
And it will only take one bonafide example to prove the point.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, after all.

I would add to the Bellman's point that the something in question could be a delusion. Your point was that direct experiences might not be delusional. All of our evidence of events in external reality is from indirect experiences mediated through direct experience. So all experiences are evidence of something. How do we know what they are evidence of?

The answer is that we tend to distinguish between valid and invalid experiences on the basis of corroborating evidence from past experiences and predictive value for future experiences. For example, my belief that twisting a doorknob will open a door is based not just on the fact that I have experienced that method to open doors. My expectation (or prediction) that the door will open has been confirmed many times in the past. I also know about latches. I have seen descriptions of the way doorknobs work in books and other media. When one twists the door, and it fails to open, I understand why my theory of doorknobs still works, because I know about locks. In other words, we count experiences as evidence when they are corroborated by other experience.

Now, what is the corroborating evidence for the experience of hearing demons? Do those experiences have predictive value? Do the demons tell you things that turn out to be true, even though you could not have known about those things before you were told? Can other people experience the same demons? Are there better alternative explanations for the demons--e.g. an episode of schizophrenia? The unverifiable nature of experiences, especially when those experiences are at odds with other experiences, ought to damp down our gullibility--the tendency to treat as credible any unusual claim without checking it out.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

They are, certainly, evidence of something. However, every single case has NOT proved to be evidence of anything supernatural. Sure, it only takes one case to prove the point...but given the amount of claims, wouldn't you think the point would have been proven by now, if it was there to prove?

I would counter that the evidence may very well prove the existence of the supernatural, but that since it is non-replicating evidence, or evidence offered up filtered through the person possessed by said demon/s, not quantifiable.

For instance, say you log in to the Internet to play tic-tac-toe with a person you think is in France. You have no way of knowing from your perspective if that person is actually in France or not; in fact, you have no way of knowing if you're actually playing against a human being or a program.

You may be able to verify that in most cases, you are actually playing against a person outside of France, and that in many other cases you are playing against a program.

However, since there actually is a place called France and there actually are people in it, you can never say every encounter is false.

Ditto the supernatural: There is no explanation for the creation of the Universe that does not invoke the supernatural, and by that I most emphatically include the scientific creation myths of Big Bangs creating Time, Space, Matter, and Energy out of nothing (my favorite recent example are the guys who claimed that before the Big Bang, there were all these mono-dimensional membranes hangin' around somewhere -- not Space, since that hadn't been created yet -- and somehow one or the other bumped into another and that started the super-strings vibrating and from that the physical universe was created. And it's elephants all the way down, I suppose... ).

Since there obvious was a supernatural (i.e., beyond Time and Space) cause for the origin of the Universe, it follows there has to be something beyond our pitiful abilities to see and comprehend. I daresay most claims of the supernatural are indeed mistaken or bogus, but like France, the supernatural exists.

 

[copernicus]

Since there obvious was a supernatural (i.e., beyond Time and Space) cause for the origin of the Universe, it follows there has to be something beyond our pitiful abilities to see and comprehend. I daresay most claims of the supernatural are indeed mistaken or bogus, but like France, the supernatural exists.

First of all, the only point that I saw you make in your post was that there are some facts which we cannot discover the truth of. We will always be ignorant or mistaken of some facts. Secondly, you make the bald assertion that the origin of the universe was supernatural. It is difficult to make sense of this claim, because it isn't at all clear what you mean by "universe". Are you talking about external reality, or the Big Bang? Assuming that the Big Bang happened, then it may not be all there is to "external reality". It is also unclear what you mean by "supernatural". I suspect that our disagreement has nothing to do with the claim that we will always be ignorant of some things, but of claims that we can know what we are in no position to know. That is where religious faith comes in.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The Big Bangers say that before the Big Bang, Time did not exist and all matter was crompressed into an infinitessimally small point with no dimensions (i.e., virtually non-existant).

Where this crompressed matter came from, who or what created it, how it got compressed, and why the force compressing it was no longer able to keep it compressed occur outside of the realm of Time and Space.

Anything outside of Time and Space (nature) is supernatural.

Now, ya wanna argue that the supernatural (i.e., "above" nature) and natural worlds are all part of one big continuum, fine, I'll concede that point.

In turn, however, you concede that there exists a realm that includes things and forces not just beyond human comprehension, but beyond human ability to comprehend.

 

[copernicus]

In turn, however, you concede that there exists a realm that includes things and forces not just beyond human comprehension, but beyond human ability to comprehend.

I'm not sure what you think is beyond human comprehension. You'll have to explain it a little more clearly. However, I do agree with you that there are gaps in our knowledge. We perhaps disagree on the need to invent gods in order to explain the gaps in our knowledge.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

I suspect, dear copernicus, that there are things the human brain is physiologically incapable of comprehending.

For example, say a person was born without eyes and as such never experienced sight at all. Now, this person could be made to understand what light is in a vague way: It's similar to the warmth he feels from a flame, and he understands people "see" objects from the light that reflects off them the way he "hears" objects from the way sound bounces off them.

But he'll never understand a yerllow shirt with purple polka dots looks horrid when worn with checked pink and lime trousers.

I think the human mind is incapable of wrapping itself around not-Time and non-Space. I think the human mind realizes such things must exist, and can understand very vaguely just the grossest and most indirect evidence of same, but can not fully comprehend it any more than the eyeless man in the second paragraph could fully comprehend light, much less figure out on his own what a color wheel is, how to make a laser work, vanishing points, optics, etc.

Since not-Time and non-Space clearly exist independent of the physical (i.e., natural and/or scientific) universe we inhabit, and since from our limited human perspective are the precursors of this universe, there exists something in in the realm of the super-natural/super-scientific that is the prime mover or creator of this universe.

Once the existence of super-nature is established, all sorts of super-nature beings are theoretically possible that could not exist if they were confined to this universe alone. This is not to say they must exist, but only that their existence can not be disproven in this physical universe.

There's a book called FLATLAND, a sci-fi novel from the Victorian era (or more properly, a math-fi novel! ) that's available in many places on the Internet as a free e-text. Do a google search and check it out; it's a funny, witty, insightful, and ultimately profound work about two dimensional creatures attempting to comprehend three dimensional creatures.

 

[The Bellman]

I would counter that the evidence may very well prove the existence of the supernatural, but that since it is non-replicating evidence, or evidence offered up filtered through the person possessed by said demon/s, not quantifiable.

For instance, say you log in to the Internet to play tic-tac-toe with a person you think is in France. You have no way of knowing from your perspective if that person is actually in France or not; in fact, you have no way of knowing if you're actually playing against a human being or a program.

You may be able to verify that in most cases, you are actually playing against a person outside of France, and that in many other cases you are playing against a program.

However, since there actually is a place called France and there actually are people in it, you can never say every encounter is false.

However, I CAN say that this case is not proof that France actually exists. For that proof, I would have to look elsewhere. The same is the case with the supernatural. None of the 'incidents' prove that it exists...but there's nowhere else to look for that proof.

Ditto the supernatural: There is no explanation for the creation of the Universe that does not invoke the supernatural, and by that I most emphatically include the scientific creation myths of Big Bangs creating Time, Space, Matter, and Energy out of nothing (my favorite recent example are the guys who claimed that before the Big Bang, there were all these mono-dimensional membranes hangin' around somewhere -- not Space, since that hadn't been created yet -- and somehow one or the other bumped into another and that started the super-strings vibrating and from that the physical universe was created. And it's elephants all the way down, I suppose... ).

Since there obvious was a supernatural (i.e., beyond Time and Space) cause for the origin of the Universe, it follows there has to be something beyond our pitiful abilities to see and comprehend. I daresay most claims of the supernatural are indeed mistaken or bogus, but like France, the supernatural exists.

You're right. There are no explanations for the CREATION of the universe that don't include the supernatural, since creation necessarily requires a creator, who would be supernatural. There are, however, theories as to the ORIGIN of the universe that don't include the supernatural. Your desire to call modern scientific theories "supernatural" is interesting, but says a great deal about you, and nothing about them. They're not "supernatural".

Sorry, but, once again, we can verify that France exists from any number of sources. The same is not true of the supernatural.

 

[Dogman]

Lilliithspeak's post points out that believing in something like a "devil" without any undeniable proof is no more than simply believing in a boogeyman. After all, as she said, if he's this powerful that he can compete with God, why not give proof positive that he exists today.

Instead, all of this "proof" is from stories thousands of years old and nothing since then. Others, who currently say they have had encounters with "Satan", are all anecdotal and more than likely can be attributed to something else.

Shouldn't we, as Christians, critically evaluate some of these claims?

 

[Ave Maria]

Hi The Bellman. Personally, I don't know how to answer your question. I would say that there are some gullible Christians. But then again, there are probably some gullible Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc... too. I don't think it affects only one particular group. Whether or not a particular group is affected more than another, I don't know.

 

[copernicus]

I suspect, dear copernicus, that there are things the human brain is physiologically incapable of comprehending.

Absolutely. Other species have brains, too, and what we mean by "comprehension" is really grounded in the relationship between our bodies and our brains. You didn't even need the example of the blind person to convince me of this (although I suspect that even the brains of congenitally blind people are wired for visual perception). It is connecting this observation to a brainless, bodiless god that I object to. I also object to the idea that knowledge is cumulative. I don't believe that facts can be counted in the same way that chickens or eggs can. Human intelligence evolves in a brain with bodily experiences. Gods don't have bodies or brains, but somehow humans are supposed to be created in their "image". The opposite is the case.

I think the human mind is incapable of wrapping itself around not-Time and non-Space. I think the human mind realizes such things must exist, and can understand very vaguely just the grossest and most indirect evidence of same, but can not fully comprehend it any more than the eyeless man in the second paragraph could fully comprehend light, much less figure out on his own what a color wheel is, how to make a laser work, vanishing points, optics, etc.

One could argue that we never fully comprehend anything, since we are always developing new theories about the nature of things. Implicit in your argument is that there is some final "ultimate" theory of everything, which the mind of God has arrived at. I don't think that knowledge (theories of reality) are anything but elaborate chains of analogy (metaphor) that are grounded in our direct experiences. So it makes no sense to believe that a brainless, bodiless being could exist, let alone have knowledge. BTW, I think that humans have come up with very interesting ways of handling paradoxical ideas. Don't be so quick to imagine the limitations of the human mind.

Since not-Time and non-Space clearly exist independent of the physical (i.e., natural and/or scientific) universe we inhabit, and since from our limited human perspective are the precursors of this universe, there exists something in in the realm of the super-natural/super-scientific that is the prime mover or creator of this universe.

It's ironic that you claim we cannot conceive of "not-Time" and "non-Space", yet you have no lack of clear ideas about them. Frankly, I don't think that you are making any sense at all. Nothing clearly exists independently of the universe we inhabit. We are also free to speculate that something does. This gets us no closer to God, although some would like to think that it does. The notions of "prime mover" or "creator" are not necessary to our understanding of the universe, since they explain nothing about it. We only find natural causes of natural phenomena, and we have a phenomenally bad track record of being wrong when we have relied on supernatural explanations. Rain dances don't stop droughts.

Once the existence of super-nature is established, all sorts of super-nature beings are theoretically possible that could not exist if they were confined to this universe alone. This is not to say they must exist, but only that their existence can not be disproven in this physical universe.

I must say that I am in violent agreement with this paragraph. Not only can all sorts of crazy things exist, but we can never be in a position to distinguish them from crazy things that don't exist. Of all the gazillions of false religious ideas that humans have dreamed up, why should your ideas be any truer? Somebody has to win the lottery, because there are a finite number of numerical combinations. There are no theoretical limits on the religious faiths that people can dream up, so nobody has to win that lottery.

There's a book called FLATLAND, a sci-fi novel from the Victorian era (or more properly, a math-fi novel!) that's available in many places on the Internet as a free e-text. Do a google search and check it out; it's a funny, witty, insightful, and ultimately profound work about two dimensional creatures attempting to comprehend three dimensional creatures.

I've known about that book since childhood, and it makes a very good metaphorical point. But you keep missing mine. I don't disagree with you on the human condition, only on your claims about the superhuman one. Just because flatlanders can't conceive of three-dimensional beings, that doesn't mean that three dimensional beings exist or are worthy objects of worship. Dream up as many godlike beings as you like, just don't ask people to have faith in their existence or to worship them.

 

[Drifster]

I've been reading the banter back and forth and some very interesting points have been made. What I mostly see are a few lost souls stroking there egos and seemingly stretching there intellect (if thats what they want to call it), but even some of there subjective theories are outdated and they should brush up on current theories. I'm currently reading a book by Ken Wilber "A Theory of Everything".TOE..He is pushing the latest M-Theory (mother to all theories) or string theory with a model that would unite all the known laws of the universe into one all-embracing theory that would literally explain everything in existence.(The very hand of God could be seen in it's formulas, some whisper)...all models of physics (that we know of) including electromagnetism, nuclear forces, gravity, in theory are united into one super model whose fundamental units are known as 'strings'....in the interiors of quarks, it is said, there are vibrating strings, and these strings are the fundamental units of everything. Each one-dimensional vibrating chord (string) has it's own 'note', and from that 'note', one can derive every known particle and force in the cosmos....anyway, without getting into a full blown lecture on unified physics, I'll answer the original question with a question.

Is it the truth you seek, or the vanity of knowledge??

Proverbs 17:24

Sensible people keep their eyes glued on wisdom, but a fool's eyes wander to the ends of the earth.

 

[Holy Heretic]

Recently I was having a discussion online with a Christian. He mentioned something in passing and I questioned him and it emerged that he believes that crop-circles are supernatural, that some people have extra-sensory powers, that bigfoot exists and that there's a government conspiracy to keep his existence quiet, and several other umm...'unusual' beliefs. Another couple of Christians were in the conversation, and they quickly told the first Christian that he was just being extremely gullible...and then, later, revealed that one of them believes in biblical numerology and the other believes in dowsing.

My question is, are Christians in general more gullible about things related to pseudo-science and the (supposedly) supernatural? If so, why? Is it that their Christianity makes them gullible, or are they christians because they're gullible?

as a rationalist deist, I find the prejudiced term "pseudo-science" to be rather arrogant, it is based on an assumption that these sciences are'nt true and these ideas are'nt true because 'they are'nt scintifically proven", well...gee, science changes{like all things", we learn new thinga bout the world and the universe all the time and develop new science, sometimes old science gets proven wrong-or at least that it made a miscalculation.

I cannot prove the existence of aliens/ufos/alien abduction/esp/astrology/govt-illuminati conspiracy cover-ups/etc, but many {not all, but many} of these do have enough evidence to make them qiote possible or even probable, and logic backs up some of them too!

modern science and our current understastanding and usage of it is not the be all-end all.

peace

 

[The Bellman]

as a rationalist deist, I find the prejudiced term "pseudo-science" to be rather arrogant, it is based on an assumption that these sciences are'nt true and these ideas are'nt true because 'they are'nt scintifically proven", well...gee, science changes{like all things", we learn new thinga bout the world and the universe all the time and develop new science, sometimes old science gets proven wrong-or at least that it made a miscalculation.

I cannot prove the existence of aliens/ufos/alien abduction/esp/astrology/govt-illuminati conspiracy cover-ups/etc, but many {not all, but many} of these do have enough evidence to make them qiote possible or even probable, and logic backs up some of them too!

modern science and our current understastanding and usage of it is not the be all-end all.

peace

The description "pseudo-science" is not about subject, it's about methodologies. The things you mention above are pseudo-science, not science, not because of their subject, but because the advocates have made them unfalsifiable. This disqualifies them as science.

 

[NoDeity]

I wasn't referring just to religious beliefs; I think gullible people are more likely to hold beliefs in general. (As in, for any given belief, the chances of a gullible person holding it are higher.)

That makes sense to me.

---

Are Christians more gullible than whom? Are they more gullible than people who are aware of how easily we humans can be fooled and who consciously try to avoid being fooled? Yes, most Christians are probably more gullible than them. I'd guess that most non-Christians are, too.

Many of the non-Christians I know have fallen for some sort of pseudoscientific silliness such as homeopathy, therapeutic touch, astrology, belief in ESP, etc. You won't see them in church but you'll see them in the "health food" store.

I think that most of us are born suckers. Humans are generally very easily fooled. Critical thinking is something that we can learn to do but few if any of us are born with that skill. Sadly, it seems that few people are especially interested in developing it. However, and I think this is an important point, gullible people need not remain gullible. (If one forgets that one is easily fooled, though, then I think that one becomes more likely to get fooled.)

Is it that their Christianity makes them gullible, or are they christians because they're gullible?

I don't know. However, there are teachings within Christianity (and many other religions) that should be anathema to those who value critical thinking. For example, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

 

[The_White]

I would actually like an answer to my other post, way back on page 3 which got completely ignored

Hey Bellman, I wonder if it is just that you and others notice it more in Christians because you are looking for it harder in us?
For example, for a lot of people it is easyer to find a 'dumb blonde' than a smart one because they are already of a mind that blonde=dumb. On the other hand for many people it is easyer to find the 'rare' 'smart blonde' because they are the type of person who looks for what is not the steryotype

 

[Risen Tree]

That makes sense to me.

---

Are Christians more gullible than whom? Are they more gullible than people who are aware of how easily we humans can be fooled and who consciously try to avoid being fooled? Yes, most Christians are probably more gullible than them. I'd guess that most non-Christians are, too.

Many of the non-Christians I know have fallen for some sort of pseudoscientific silliness such as homeopathy, therapeutic touch, astrology, belief in ESP, etc. You won't see them in church but you'll see them in the "health food" store.

"Pseudoscientific," in this instance, would be better written "extrascientific." Maybe. Therapeutic touch's healing powers have well-documented, and if you haven't meet anyone who has ESP...try to find one.

I think that most of us are born suckers. Humans are generally very easily fooled. Critical thinking is something that we can learn to do but few if any of us are born with that skill. Sadly, it seems that few people are especially interested in developing it. However, and I think this is an important point, gullible people need not remain gullible. (If one forgets that one is easily fooled, though, then I think that one becomes more likely to get fooled.)

Again, you assume that critical thinking is an inherent asset, and gullibility is an inherent liability. This is true in some circumstances, but to claim that it is so all the time reeks of arrogance.

I don't know. However, there are teachings within Christianity (and many other religions) that should be anathema to those who value critical thinking. For example, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

A literal interpretation of this verse, of course, can be disturbing. But if it is taken to mean a process of mental growth instead of snap decisions, then the verse turns into, "Let God develop your mind. Don't try to cheat the system; it just doesn't work."

I'm not claiming that this new translation is right. It just sits with me a little better.

 

[The Bellman]

I would actually like an answer to my other post, way back on page 3 which got completely ignored

[/size][/color][/font]

No, I don't think it is.

 

[The Bellman]

"Pseudoscientific," in this instance, would be better written "extrascientific." Maybe. Therapeutic touch's healing powers have well-documented, and if you haven't meet anyone who has ESP...try to find one.

Pseudoscientific is fine. I don't know what "theapeutic touch" is, but there is nobody who has ESP.

Again, you assume that critical thinking is an inherent asset, and gullibility is an inherent liability. This is true in some circumstances, but to claim that it is so all the time reeks of arrogance.

Critical thinking IS an inherent asset, and gullibility IS an inherent liability. I don't see how saying so is any more arrogant than saying, for example, that delusional thinking is an inherent liablity.

 

[NoDeity]

Therapeutic touch's healing powers have well-documented,

Please provide a link to a study which provides scientific evidence for the "healing powers" of therapeutic touch, published in a reputable journal.

Again, you assume that critical thinking is an inherent asset, and gullibility is an inherent liability. This is true in some circumstances, but to claim that it is so all the time reeks of arrogance.

Cool. I'll gladly reek of arrogance, then.

A literal interpretation of this verse, of course, can be disturbing. But if it is taken to mean a process of mental growth instead of snap decisions, then the verse turns into, "Let God develop your mind. Don't try to cheat the system; it just doesn't work."

That doesn't have much in common with what the proverb actually says.

I'm not claiming that this new translation is right. It just sits with me a little better.

If you're going to reinterpret the Bible to mean what you'd prefer it to mean, why bother with the Bible at all?