How does one come to believe something?

[KCfromNC]

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).

Nope, not correct. At a minimum, P3 should end with "at least one of the methods listed in p1", not "everything listed in p1".

But I still think the idea to replace this with people believe for reasons is better.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

...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.

But both "articulating reasons" and "...whether...reasons are sufficient to warrant the...confidence the religious have in [their] claims" are, looking at it from one perspective, subject to deeper motives as the real causes of forming beliefs.

If (1) all information (or all that exists) is endued by one of two possible qualities--truth or falsity--resulting in bodies, souls, minds and/or spirits existing in value-fragmented states, and (2) prescriptive truth is more powerful than descriptive truth in truth's opposition to the false, it seems to follow that (3) all motives for normative belief consist in either resistance of the intellect to prescriptive truth it encounters (by which the motive to form 'reasons' against it "as true" is born, e.g., Jn 3:19-21) or union of truth in the soul with the truth of intuited and revealed claims.

In the end, judgments about whether religious claims allow warrant for belief are themselves fashioned by either their union with or opposition to external and absolute prescriptive truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If (1) all information (or all that exists) is endued by one of two possible qualities--truth or falsity--resulting in bodies, souls, minds and/or spirits existing in value-fragmented states, and (2) prescriptive truth is more powerful than descriptive truth in truth's opposition to the false, it seems to follow that (3) all motives for normative belief consist in either resistance of the intellect to prescriptive truth it encounters (by which the motive to form 'reasons' against it "as true" is born, e.g., Jn 3:19-21) or union of truth in the soul with the truth of intuited and revealed claims.

In the end, judgments about whether religious claims allow warrant for belief are themselves fashioned by either their union with or opposition to external and absolute prescriptive truth.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I have another thread going that fleshes out the starting point for this view. I welcome reasons for its falsification.

 

[JGG]

I have another thread going that fleshes out the starting point for this view. I welcome reasons for its falsification.

Link? Maybe it is easier to comorehend.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Link? Maybe it is easier to comorehend.

Sorry, I've never learned to link. I'll have to research it one of these days. It's easy to find, it's in philosophy.

 

[lumberjohn]

"1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs."

Several problems with this. First, people generally don't "evaluate" emotions or properly basic beliefs. Evaluation suggests some sort of analysis which is something that is absent in such cases. I would replace "by evaluating" with "through." The second problem is that even this list is too restrictive. As others have indicated, there are many bases for belief other than these such as cognitive biases. It would be virtually impossible to list them all.

I think atheists generally agree that if one is to have confidence in a belief, that belief should be epistemologically justified. Epistemological justification requires a systematic process in which evidence, in the more narrow sense of empirical evidence, is set atop a foundation of properly basic beliefs (in the sense that they represent the minimum necessary beliefs to make sense of the world: I exist; my senses are sometimes reliable) and evaluated according to logic to produce valid deductions. Once one begins using such a process and is convinced of its effectiveness, all important beliefs become subjected to it. The decision to use this screening process may be voluntary, but its results are not. Of course, not all beliefs require such confidence and so are often accepted on the basis of less.

 

[lumberjohn]

The problem atheists have with many Christians is the perception that they assign confidence to certain beliefs without sufficient epistemic justification. It is not so much what they believe as how sure they are of what they believe.

 

[rcetc]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

The Scriptures teach that belief or FAITH is based on knowledge and God's wisdom. Hebrews 11:1 states: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (NASB) Then the writer of Hebrews give us examples of faith in the Scriptures. Noah believed the words of God that a worldwide flood was coming sometime in the future and Noah should start building a boat to get ready, despite the fact that it had never rained since the beginning of creation. Over 100 years later the boat was completed and the rains came. Noah had no evidence that what God said was true he simply believed it. Children become Christians everyday, which was my experience at the age of six. Children have no real evidence, they simply believe that the message they hear is true. Belief is based on knowledge reinforced by God's given wisdom. Knowledge dose not always carry an element of empirical evidence. You, as a stranger, could tell me your homeless and need some money. By faith, I give you some money simply because I believe your story without any evidence that what you're telling me is true. Individuals believe what God is telling them is true and become Christians all the time simply through the testimony of others and the Holy Spirit working in the world. The Holy Spirit cannot be seen, but all true Christians know without any doubt that he exists and is working in the world, despite the fact He cannot be seen. The world does not see but Christian do. Why? In John 14:16-17 Jesus Christ gives us the answer: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." (NASB) For the Christian the empirical evidence comes after Faith, not before. To help understand some of these concepts my book is available worldwide. Made in the Image of God: Understanding the Nature of God and Mankind in a Changing World by Reid A. Ashbaucher. Something to think about.

 

[SpiritRehab]

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Evaluating Evidence is not the only way, one comes to believe a claim.
I believe it to be the rarest way.

A far more common way, is by through faith in the authority & integrity of the source of the claim; rather than by the merits of the claim itself.

There are a Billion Hindus, a Billion Muslims and 2 Billion who consider themselves "Christians."

How many of these do you suppose suspended their belief, until they evaluated the evidence? Or how many would you believe, accepted their faith as a child, then re-evaluated as an adult and concluded they were correct all along, from the evidence? And how many of them do you supposed simply believed their parents and got on with the distractions in their lives?

How many Hindus, Muslims or Christians have you met who actively study their religion's holy book?

Another way to come to a belief, is to have it relentlessly repeated to you as a given truth. Or as Hitler put it, "if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed,"

This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated. This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory.

The best way to come to Faith in Jesus, is through direct interaction with Him; through prayer for answers. To have Him correct & confirm your interpretations of His word and assumptions about the "churches,"

 

[lumberjohn]

This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated. This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory.

You have brilliantly sussed out the strategy of the secular left to indoctinate everyone into believing the theory of evolution by incorporating a streamlined version into the introduction of a popular television show. Evil geniuses they are.

 

[Chozen1956]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

No. it is not true.
1. Belief in God is described as follows; Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, certain of what we do not see.
2. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
3. The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing...
4. And since God chooses us, He somehow gives the gift of faith/belief.

And if we are evaluating evidences to prove God, then the evidence I present is everything that is.

 

[paulm50]

Evaluating Evidence is not the only way, one comes to believe a claim.
I believe it to be the rarest way.

No it's not.

How many of these do you suppose suspended their belief, until they evaluated the evidence? Or how many would you believe, accepted their faith as a child, then re-evaluated as an adult and concluded they were correct all along, from the evidence? And how many of them do you supposed simply believed their parents and got on with the distractions in their lives?

There are parts of all those stories from bibles that have been proven to be wrong, even Jesus said things that would happen. That never did.

Another way to come to a belief, is to have it relentlessly repeated to you as a given truth. Or as Hitler put it, "if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed,"

This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated. This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory.

And 2,000 years of repeating the same theory of creationism, is wiped out be a TV programme.

How about the 1,000s of museums all over the world, using the Internet to find the truth, or common sense?

 

[rstrats]

Chany,
re: "Beliefs, at least to the extent in which we come to have them, are involuntary."

That is certainly true. Beliefs cannot be consciously chosen.

 

[paulm50]

Chany,
re: "Beliefs, at least to the extent in which we come to have them, are involuntary."

That is certainly true. Beliefs cannot be consciously chosen.

So we choose them without thinking, or when unconscious?

 

[Aardverk]

..........This is why the intro video theme song, of the American television comedy series, "The Big Bang Theory," is the story of evolution. Every time one watches an episode, they will be indoctrinated.

I can never see what the pictures are. Are you suggesting that I am being indoctrinated subliminally? Did you know that the theory of subliminal indoctrination has been disproved?

This is also why it is presented as fact in "nature" & "science" programming; even though it is a disproven theory..............

Which theory has been disproved?
Big Bang?
Evolution?
Subliminal indoctrination?
Etc?

 

[rstrats]

paulm50,


re: "So we choose them without thinking, or when unconscious?"


I would say that thinking about an issue may (or may not) cause a belief - a conviction - to be realized with regard to the issue. But the actual engendering of the belief itself would not be done on a conscious level. I would guess that when a new belief is realized that it is most likely due to a process occurring in the subconscious mind after being exposed to stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, reflection, experience, etc.

 

[Cosmic Zamboni]

There are countless people who believe there is other life, and even intelligent life, in the universe. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support such a belief. Therefore, some beliefs are based on a desire to believe rather than evidence.

I came to faith in Christ by revelation that was consistent with my prior belief. My beliefs were sound, and they were based on solid evidence, but they did not constitute faith. Faith and salvation are not the same as belief, although without belief they are probably not possible.

 

[jimbohank]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

I think, for me at least, it comes down making a sincere choice to ask the questions and seek the answers. I have debated with a many atheists, and one thing I find interesting is that none of them have honestly asked the question and investigated, through God's Word, anything of the existence of God. They will usually respond with, "why would I trust such a thing as a bunch of books put together telling us how to live our lives", which they believe to be fiction, yet never bother to answer the question of how such a group of writings, written over thousands of years can be so consistent and so powerfully perfect. They, of course, would then argue, how can you say it is consistent and powerfully perfect, yet they refuse to search it out for themselves. They always want those who believe to prove it to them rather than taking ownership of the question and seeking for themselves. Very interesting when you consider that the question itself deals with the eternal soul and ignoring that fact doesn't make it obsolete. They say "prove that God exists", I say prove He doesn't! I could give example after example of the glory of, not only God's existence, but that He is a perfectly loving and just God in every aspect. But they will continue to deny. In the end, it is God Himself that must open the heart and mind, whether it be through finally seeing His gracious and loving nature through His Word and creation or through His judgement.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I think atheists generally agree that if one is to have confidence in a belief, that belief should be epistemologically justified. Epistemological justification requires a systematic process in which evidence, in the more narrow sense of empirical evidence, is set atop a foundation of properly basic beliefs (in the sense that they represent the minimum necessary beliefs to make sense of the world

But this is atheist circularity. The atheist says to the theist, "Come, let us argue our cases together. The rules are, only things in space and time exist. Now then, come, tell me all about your God!"

If you get to set the rules, you'll "win" every time. So much for the 'freethinker' title.