How does one come to believe something?

[Ken-1122]

The difference with the bible is there's contradictory evidence with far more weight than what Bronze and Roman Age men knew. We know a lot more about Paul, than we know about Christ. All we know about him is he lived, the rest comes from biased sources preaching a message.

I wasn't discussing the Bible or theism; I was discussing my disagreement with the claim that what we believe is the result of evaluating evidence.

Ken

 

[Kirsten]

So those who sinned the most, are top of the list?

You make no sense.

We are all sinners equally because nobody can follow the law. It is impossible.

 

[Joshua260]

No. Premise one is still incomplete. People come to believe because of all that stuff, and a whole bunch of other stuff. For instance, emotional response. Also, don't misinterpret an assertion with evidence for that assertion.

Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?

 

[Kirsten]

Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?

I think children who are abused by their father, whom they closely identify with God, and their emotional response to that abuse, come to believe God is either abusive or doesn't exist at all because God claims to be love. If a child does not experience love, believing in a God of love can be a challenge as an adult.

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?

I can, if I may.

On holiday with a male friend in Africa almost 35 years ago, we met a couple of British sisters. After a couple of days, I just knew that one of them (a particular one, that is, not either / or ) would be the one I would marry. I barely knew anything about her at all. Five and a half years later we were married, and still are. That emotional response led me to a belief that turned out, for whatever reason, to be right. Lucky lucky me.

 

[JGG]

Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?

No, I can't. You're way too smart and handsome to believe a silly old wives' tale like that.

 

[Chany]

So you actually agreed with the original p1...that a person comes to believe something only through evidence. Interesting, and thanks for your response.

Under the stipulation that evidence be defined as broadly as I have to include things we would not normally label evidence. The word "evaluate" connotes a willful action from the agent. This does not have to happen in order for the agent to form a belief. "Evidence" connotes a specific type of evidence, namely of the logical argument type and such, the type one would accept in academia. I guess I could use the word "experience", but that has improper connotations as well. Also, again, there are psychological considerations as well. In other words, the premise technically true, but it needs to mention psychological considerations and also explicitly define evidence.

All of this ignores more important questions, however. What should accept as good evidence? What propositions should we accept? How epistemically justified is the person in their belief? Should they accept the proposition that they believe, or are there other considerations that might lead them to reject the proposition?

 

[Joshua260]

I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

Some responders jumped ahead of me, but I wanted to get the basic structure of the argument down first before we get into the details. Now I'd like to talk about what is meant by "evidence". I cited before a Wikipedia definition (the link was given previously if you want to read the whole article):

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."

"Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence."

"Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, that plays some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics."

So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?

 

[Davian]

I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

Some responders jumped ahead of me, but I wanted to get the basic structure of the argument down first before we get into the details. Now I'd like to talk about what is meant by "evidence". I cited before a Wikipedia definition (the link was given previously if you want to read the whole article):

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."

"Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence."

"Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, that plays some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics."

So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?

Sure. And by that same standard, it is true that my children have evidence to support their belief in Santa.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?

By the same standard, virtually every religion possesses evidence supporting its major claims.

 

[Chany]

I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

Some responders jumped ahead of me, but I wanted to get the basic structure of the argument down first before we get into the details. Now I'd like to talk about what is meant by "evidence". I cited before a Wikipedia definition (the link was given previously if you want to read the whole article):

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."

"Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence."

"Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, that plays some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics."

So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?

I would just group everything possible under one catch-all word. The best I have is "evidence", but that has connotations I would like to avoid. Also, again, do not underestimate the power of psychological biases; all people are affected by them, so to ignore them is pure folly.

The real question is if we should accept the evidence if we are trying to decided whether a given proposition has epistemic justification to be called a safely held belief.

There are two important questions:

First, are these testimonies and documents any good to us? Are they reliable or not?

Second, should we even go towards documents and testimonies in the first place? I would say not; there are more pertinent questions and parts of evidence to consider before we even get to documents.

The first set of questions we should consider are philosophical and logical ones, followed by any hard empirical facts, then so on. If a concept of god is shown to be impossible, shown to be incredibly unlikely, or shown to have no logical basis for accepting the proposition as an epistemically justified belief, then we do not need to really go into the further lines of evidence. Now, these lines of evidence may lend strength to a questionable assertion, but we should start at the beginnings first to get a good bearing.

 

[Chany]

By the same standard, virtually every religion possesses evidence supporting its major claims.

I would say that it counts as evidence; it is just not necessarily good evidence, evidence we should accept if we are honestly trying to discover which propositions carry any epistemic weight and which do not.

 

[paulm50]

That's hardly the Bible's fault.

I don't blame the bible, I blame those who wrote it. Not all and not everything. It's inconceivable that man, who is full of sin, wouldn't twist stories to his own purpose. He might also day they are the words of god.

"The Law" is a reference to the Decalogue, and all of it has a place in today's society.

It's not those I question, it's all the other one's that were added, of ignored.

Unless you have the Shakers in mind--and they have less than a dozen members at last report--I don't know of any Christian who thinks sex is a sin.

Fornication, lust, masturbation, all against bible laws. Some even say sex should only be for the procreation of children which is stupid. Anal sex is bad when we were created with erogenous nerves around the anus. Church wedding, are a very recent addition, even divorce was perfectly acceptable in the old laws.

"Jesus then answers, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery"

So OK for Moses, even though god doesn't like it. so Moses made his own rules. Same goes for many more who were guided by gods words. Which brings their honesty into question.

So I say judge them all individually.

 

[paulm50]

The thing about the word of a scientist is; you can check his word with the available objective evidence. It may take some work and education to understand the evidence, but there it is for all to see.

A lot of it takes no time at all to check, this site is proof of a lot of science along with the devices we're using to post.

We can crack open a lump of coal and find plants long gone, or Google to find a lot of evidence. The bible was written by men who didn't know what we know now. Proof that their knowledge didn't stretch beyond their small part of the world.

 

[paulm50]

I wasn't discussing the Bible or theism; I was discussing my disagreement with the claim that what we believe is the result of evaluating evidence.

Ken

Some give too much weight to scant evidence.

We are all sinners equally because nobody can follow the law. It is impossible.

So were the bible writers sinners?

And for fundamental Christians that's the flaw in their argument. They believe the written word, in the bible, above all evidence of the truth.

Did the bible writers know of the Hunter Gatherers period, of the walk out of Africa of Home Sapiens and other humanoid species, of the Mega Fauna, Ice Ages, Dinosaurs, the Ark wasn't large enough to house all the species on Earth, Neanderthals, Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, Disease, etc. All things happening around them or had come before them.

They were Jews whose only knowledge was the part of the World and a very limited knowledge. So what they didn't know or couldn't control, was allotted to the power of god.

 

[paulm50]

I think children who are abused by their father, whom they closely identify with God, and their emotional response to that abuse, come to believe God is either abusive or doesn't exist at all because God claims to be love. If a child does not experience love, believing in a God of love can be a challenge as an adult.

What about children abused by clergy, monks or nuns who go onto be clergy, monks or nuns?

I was loved as a child and have no belief in the god the bibles present. And I have no problem with giving or recieving love. Your post is an insult to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would say that it counts as evidence; it is just not necessarily good evidence, evidence we should accept if we are honestly trying to discover which propositions carry any epistemic weight and which do not.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think anyone denies that the religious are capable of articulating various reasons for why they believe the claims of their religion. The question is whether those reasons are sufficient to warrant the high, often extreme, level of confidence the religious have in those claims.

 

[Albion]

I don't blame the bible, I blame those who wrote it.

I see.

 

[JGG]

I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

Premise 1 Is still incomplete. In fact, it will pretty much always be incomplete. There are all kinds of reasons we accept information. I was giving "emotions" as an example not a definitive answer. Premise 1 is a question researchers are studying constantly. If I were writing it, the progression would look like:

1. People come to believe something for various reasons.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists for various reasons.

Is that acceptable?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Premise 1 Is still incomplete. In fact, it will pretty much always be incomplete. There are all kinds of reasons we accept information. I was giving "emotions" as an example not a definitive answer. Premise 1 is a question researchers are studying constantly. If I were writing it, the progression would look like:

1. People come to believe something for various reasons.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by various methods.

Is that acceptable?

Importantly, this revision leaves open the question of whether those reasons are good or not.