How do you know for sure that someone believes a god exists?

[TillICollapse]

It is a fine line between protecting a belief someone truly has with denial etc., and or realizing it is likely false and holding onto to it anyway.

IMO, you can tell by behaviors. A person that is pretending to go along with the crowd, is not going to get near as defensive, as the person that truly needs to believe their faith is true. Why? Because the first person doesn't have a psychological need to believe what they claim, their need is more socially driven and they know they are playing along and really have nothing to protect. The person who has a certain faith belief, that is threatened with well evidenced reality, will be much more defensive, because that threat hits them deep in their psyche.

Some of the posters on this board are excellent examples of cognitive dissonance in play. When someone makes entirely too much sense with a point that threatens their belief, the discomfort starts and the defense mechanisms go into full bore mode; denial, confirmation bias, etc... These folks, can't really even tell themselves they may be wrong, which is why the defense mechanisms are always in play to hold off the threat.

I'd say that I agree with all of this as well, as pointing out defensive mechanism behaviors in general seems to allude to something going on under the surface of the front being put up.

I wonder what the difference is in observed behaviors between those who are in such types of denial (and other related ones, like relationship denial, etc perhaps) contrasted with those who are covering over or hiding their crimes when confronted with questioning (as in law enforcement contexts, criminal investigations, etc) ? For example ... a person who is in denial concerning some belief system they adhere to, contrasted with someone who is being questioned about a crime and pretending they are innocent ? I wonder what the body language behaviors, defense mechanisms, etc are and how they manifest, if they are similar or drastically different, etc ? Google would be my friend, but was wondering if someone reading this had quick stats, or a link, or similar study already in mind.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd say that I agree with all of this as well, as pointing out defensive mechanism behaviors in general seems to allude to something going on under the surface of the front being put up.

I wonder what the difference is in observed behaviors between those who are in such types of denial (and other related ones, like relationship denial, etc perhaps) contrasted with those who are covering over or hiding their crimes when confronted with questioning (as in law enforcement contexts, criminal investigations, etc) ? For example ... a person who is in denial concerning some belief system they adhere to, contrasted with someone who is being questioned about a crime and pretending they are innocent ? I wonder what the body language behaviors, defense mechanisms, etc are and how they manifest, if they are similar or drastically different, etc ? Google would be my friend, but was wondering if someone reading this had quick stats, or a link, or similar study already in mind.

Interesting question.

IMO and based on my observations, the person who is guilty of a crime (and knows it) and is claiming to be innocent, is going to be more cautious and less aggressive in how they go about claiming to be innocent. They will want to put as little on the table as possible to be questioned about, knowing they are hiding something and avoiding risk.

With someone who is protecting a tightly held belief (Lets say YEC), their behavior will typically be more aggressive, citing the reasons they believe what they do and why any evidence they are presented with that threatens their belief is garbage, part of a conspiracy, etc. etc.. This person truly believes what they do, so they will talk more and volunteer information, vs the person who knows they are guilty and plays it more cautious. The YEC believer, is really engaged to keep convincing themselves they are right, while the guilty person pretending to be innocent, is trying to convince someone else.

 

[Davian]

Whether God exists isn't the point.
Most of the world's population claim to believe in some kind of God.
They could all be wrong.

Indeed, and that would be consistent with all of the evidence at hand.

But the probability they are all lying is vanishingly small.

I was not referring to the world's population. but to those around you. How would you know?

Peer pressure certainly cannot begin to explain that level of claim, remembering that:
Peer pressure never works on everyone
That there are plenty of groups where there is no peer pressure to remain
That there are plenty of people who no longer believe but say that they once did
That there are plenty of people holding to belief despite pressure not to.

No.

The possibility that any given individual is lying exists.
But the probability that they all are is vanishingly small.

Let's say 10^-3500000000

 

[TillICollapse]

Interesting question.

IMO and based on my observations, the person who is guilty of a crime (and knows it) and is claiming to be innocent, is going to be more cautious and less aggressive in how they go about claiming to be innocent. They will want to put as little on the table as possible to be questioned about, knowing they are hiding something and avoiding risk.

With someone who is protecting a tightly held belief (Lets say YEC), their behavior will typically be more aggressive, citing the reasons they believe what they do and why any evidence they are presented with that threatens their belief is garbage, part of a conspiracy, etc. etc.. This person truly believes what they do, so they will talk more and volunteer information, vs the person who knows they are guilty and plays it more cautious. The YEC believer, is really engaged to keep convincing themselves they are right, while the guilty person pretending to be innocent, is trying to convince someone else.

To the bolded part esp, good point.

 

[ebia]

Indeed, and that would be consistent with all of the evidence at hand.

I was not referring to the world's population. but to those around you.

I don't think you soecified that shift.

Australia is not a country with pressure to conform on religion.
Some individuals are under pressure to conform, but many other are not, or even have pressure to conform to a secular agenda.

 

[Davian]

I don't think you soecified that shift.

Australia is not a country with pressure to conform on religion.
Some individuals are under pressure to conform, but many other are not, or even have pressure to conform to a secular agenda.

Shift from where? I said, "Everyone (or many) around you..."

Back to the question: how would you know?

 

[ebia]

Shift from where? I said, "Everyone (or many) around you..."

Back to the question: how would you know?

You were originally responding to my comment, which was about everyone.
If you want to talk about less than that it's up to you to say so.

I won't know for certain for each individual, but the combined probability for all of them is vanishingly small.


If I throw a coin I cannot be certain whether it's heads or tails. But if I throw 10,000 coins I do know that the chance of all heads is vanishingly small:
.5^10,000, or roughly

 

[Davian]

You were originally responding to my comment, which was about everyone.
If you want to talk about less than that it's up to you to say so.

I won't know for certain for each individual, but the combined probability for all of them is vanishingly small.


If I throw a coin I cannot be certain whether it's heads or tails. But if I throw 10,000 coins I do know that the chance of all heads is vanishingly small:
.5^10,000, or roughly

Then with the individuals in your personal life, you have no way of being certain of their beliefs. It's not even a coin toss, as that implies a random pattern, with two outcomes. They could believe, not believe, or believe in a different god.

I'm glad I don't have to concern myself with that.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can only ever be reasonably sure about your own belief.

I wouldn't go that far. Hyper-skepticism about anything you can't prove with 100% certainty isn't a reasonable approach to life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The idea that everyone who claims belief is lying is preposterous.

I agree.

I remember encountering someone online who claimed that there are no sincere theists, but then he also seemed to honestly believe that all women are by nature asexual and none of them actually enjoy sex. I asked him what he thought that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] was for, but I don't think that I got a direct answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inkfingers]

Many people make the claim that a god exists. But how can we be sure they really do believe a god exists? Perhaps they are putting on a facade. Perhaps they have been duped or indoctrinated such that their belief isn't truly voluntary.

The same way you know anything about them; the test of time and whether they stick to the professed belief through troubles.

There's not "100% certain", but there is "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is good enough for anyone not trying to make a pedantic argument.

 

[talquin]

The same way you know anything about them; the test of time and whether they stick to the professed belief through troubles.

There's not "100% certain", but there is "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is good enough for anyone not trying to make a pedantic argument.

If a non-believer publicly behaved like a believer, but didn't tell anyone he was a non-believer, how would you know he was a non-believer?

 

[Inkfingers]

If a non-believer publicly behaved like a believer, but didn't tell anyone he was a non-believer, how would you know he was a non-believer?

I just told you; "The same way you know anything about them; the test of time and whether they stick to the professed belief through troubles".

 

[durangodawood]

I just told you; "The same way you know anything about them; the test of time and whether they stick to the professed belief through troubles".

That weeds out most of the fakers. But not all of them.

 

[Inkfingers]

That weeds out most of the fakers. But not all of them.

As I said...

There's not "100% certain", but there is "beyond reasonable doubt",

Some will always slip through the net.