How does one come to believe something?

[jonesdon]

... 1) Many of the greatest societies known to man made their accomplishments without Christianity: Greece during the golden age, the early Roman Empire, several dynasties of China, the Islamic empire under Muhammad, or the historic Japanese culture. 2) Look to medieval Christianity for the purer more scripture based form, and you will see it wasn’t so great. The legacy of Christianity was called the Dark Ages -- and with good reason. It was a period in which many of the previous societal advances were overturned. Scientific books were burned or written over for more copies of religious text. Christians have a terrible track record when it comes to slavery, wars, inquisitions, witch hunts, scientific progress, and so on.

3) The UN Developmental Program’s Human Development Index is a ranking of the world’s nations based on key factors such as health, education, living standards, literacy, and life expectancy at birth. The report shows that less Christianity and less religion of any kind is associated with better societies overall. 4) Social scientist Phil Zuckerman has concluded after decades of studies that that “high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health.” The least religious countries are better off than most of the religious countries. Atheist countries have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, less crime, fewer suicides, fewer homicides, higher literacy, less poverty, greater gender equality, better healthcare, and so forth.

4) You might also want to look here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/
http://www.smartskeptic.com/arguments/morality-arguments/good-without-god-can-humans-be-moral-without-god-or-religion/

5) So if you believe we need to live less, have more dead babies, more crime, more suicide, more homicides, less literacy, more poverty, less gender equality, and worse healthcare, then with those assumptions in place, I suppose God is the best choice. W 6) here you and I part ways is that I don't share those assumptions.

RESP: 1) You are good at changing the subject and/or reframing (i.e. spawning smelly red herrings). I'm talking about America -- here & now (vs. the last 200, but really, just 60 yrs). You can solve the world issues (incl. history) w others.

2) OK, I admit (and agree) that misuse & abuses were done (then & more recently). So, you call this the "purer more scripture based form"? This is pure baloney if you really know about Christ. [Webmaster: Am I allowed to defend these attacks?]

3) Interesting. Cites? But, again, I'm looking at, specifically, America. Any cites on this info us? BTW: Thanks to the internet, I'm aware that ANYTHING can proven!

4) Yes, I'll take a look at your cites as I can. Evolution is a separate subject -- I'm not going to take on all of your long laundry of subjects. I've never said (nor believed) that humans can't be moral w/o God. My orig. Q was "Is God a better choice for Americans?" I see that atheists are only playing w half a deck (the material side). Sure, you can win, but, it's tough!

5) This is, simply, erroneous logic, playing to emotions -- this definition of yours for religion. Simple observation will tell most Americans, of common sense, that true religion s not these things. This is just your angry, negative atheistic stab which I'm not allowed to defend on this forum.

6) Yes, we certainly do disagree w these "assumptions" about what true religion is!

 

[jonesdon]

1. We now know Aquinas was wrong about this. Everything is in motion and this may have been so for all eternity. There is no need for a "First Mover." [Nope! "We" don't know that Aquinas was wrong. You can think beyond human comprehension w the infinite regression or not care about the origin. But, for those of us that do care, the First Mover matters and is a logical answer. ]

2. Causality is something we have observed within our own post-Big Bang universe, but we have no justification for extrapolating it beyond that. Causality is a temporal concept that depends on linear time. Prior to the Big-Bang we don't know if there was such a thing as linear time. [Actually, cause-effect goes back to the Renaissance (or before). Extrapolating works in math and logic. OK, so this method is unacceptable to you. End of argument. BTW: Your "we don't know" is answered by the God concept -- no, time was not linear". P.S. I'll need to continue later - my response time has gone to h...]

3. We have never seen anything cease to exist in this metaphysical sense or come into existence. We have only observed changes in the composition of matter and energy. All we see may have always existed in some form. We don't know.

4. That we quantify certain things as greater and lesser need not entail the superlative you suggest. While there may be a largest star in the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean a larger star isn't possible, or that there must be some "maximally large" star. These are just terms we use to relect relative quantities.

5. You haven't even established there is any such "best possible purpose." Aquinas lived in a pre-evolution world before the appearance of design was explained by natural selection. There is no basis to accept this claim today.

 

[lumberjohn]

Yes, perhaps, the best that a material minded person can do.

Did I miss something? Aren't we all material minded? Of what is your mind composed?

4) So, you only believe in one kind of evidence (or approach) vs. my 4 types (#479) or various methods/approaches (bot. note in #506)?

But, using our unique, special, higher level human faculties, I will argue about "superior" -- let alone "in every way". I see that your way is limited.

What are these limitations, and how are they effectively addressed by a different approach? Of course, you will need to demonstrate that this different approach is in fact more reliable, and thus superior, in some way that does not merely beg the question.

 

[lumberjohn]

RESP: 1) You are good at changing the subject and/or reframing (i.e. spawning smelly red herrings). I'm talking about America -- here & now (vs. the last 200, but really, just 60 yrs).

you seem to have a nostalgic longing for the 50s and 60s. Perhaps you should sit down for a few seasons of Mad Men to see how much "better" society was back then -- especially for African-Americans, women, homosexuals, and just about anyone not a male WASP. Or perhaps your nostalgia is greater for America of the early 1800s. That was really a banner time for the non-WASP set as well. Oh, to return to the days of slavery, before women could vote. Good times.

 

[lumberjohn]

Nope! "We" don't know that Aquinas was wrong. You can think beyond human comprehension w the infinite regression or not care about the origin. But, for those of us that do care, the First Mover matters and is a logical answer.

Actually, we do know that Aquinas was wrong, and it's pretty simple to understand why. I'm quoting Sean Carroll here, because I don't think I can explain it any better: "Aristotle thought that, to keep an object moving in a straight line, you had to keep pushing it. This seems silly to us post-Newtonians, but in fact it’s pretty straightforward. Take a chair sitting on the floor and give it a push — once you stop pushing, it will stop moving. “Aha,” you say, “but that’s only because of friction. If we ignore the friction, objects continue to move in straight lines unless forces act upon them.” True, but highly non-intuitive. Why should we ignore friction, when it is ubiquitous in the real world around us? Aristotle wasn’t making a mistake, he was accurately describing the world he saw. If we take his description seriously, it’s not so crazy to argue all the way to God. Lots of things in the world are moving, and moving objects require something to keep them moving, and ultimately that thing will be God.

Galileo’s insight — that the way to describe dynamics is to ignore friction and air resistance, find a simple model for the resulting motions, and then re-introduce friction afterwards — was one of the most important moments in the history of science, and indirectly of religion as well. After he and Newton figured out conservation of momentum and the laws of motion, the Aristotle/Aquinas line of argument suddenly makes no sense. We don’t need a “cause” or “mover” to explain why things are moving; that’s the natural thing for them to do. This Newtonian revolution was, at a purely intellectual level, just as important as the Darwinian revolution for taking the philosophical wind out of religion’s sails. After Newton, the primary justification for God shifted from cosmological arguments about first causes, to design arguments. Then Darwin made those seem silly (although Hume had done a pretty convincing job years before)."

 

[lumberjohn]

Actually, cause-effect goes back to the Renaissance (or before). Extrapolating works in math and logic. OK, so this method is unacceptable to you. End of argument. BTW: Your "we don't know" is answered by the God concept

Actually, I'm pretty sure we had causes and effects well before the Renaissance, but I don't want to be pedantic. Perhaps you mean cause/effect based arguments for God's existence go back to the Renaissance. In fact, they too go back much farther. But that is just an argument from antiquity. The problem, as I've explained in the post above, is that neither Aquinas nor Aristotle, upon whom Aquinas' theology rested, had any concept of Newtonian physics or its implications. Neither did they have a modern understanding of cosmology. Our evolved understanding completely eviscerates the force of their ancient arguments.

As for extrapolation, it is only justified if one can properly assume a pattern will continue past the point of the current defined set. The problem is that we can't make this assumption past the Big Bang, so extrapolation of causality is unjustified.

 

[Wayne R.]

It is interesting to watch someone go from looking like they have nothing to confirming it.

Now, be nice. You made the claim, so tell me about your experiments? Is it possible you believe in dark matter/energy as a matter of trust in the integrity of those making the report? We call that "accepting by faith".
As to your "nothing" statement: I clearly offered "intuition" as a function of what is known as "spirit". You may have different thoughts and that's fine. I merely answered the question. What you believe is not my concern.

 

[jonesdon]

1) Did I miss something? Aren't we all material minded? Of what is your mind composed? 2) What are these limitations, and how are they effectively addressed by a different approach? 3) Of course, you will need to demonstrate that this different approach is in fact more reliable, and thus superior, in some way that does not merely beg the question.

=== 1) Yes, precisely, my point -- you have been, and are, missing something. Some of us are (also) spiritually minded. Being "minded" is about the action, not the brain matter.

2) Not having concepts "outside the box" (i.e. beyond the material world), apparently, you can't see the limitations as "this is just the way humans are". But, we can be much more in realizing our potential. I've indicated several times, in several ways, how only seeing the physical is seeing only half the deck. And, I could argue, you're missing the most important half. Most Americans realize this.

3) Nope, not "of course". If you can't or don't want to understand, w an open mind, then I don't really need (or will be able) to convince you of anything. I can only lead you to the water -- not make you drink. Many are already convinced. It's only the open-minded middle that is worth talking with. Some call themselves "seekers" or "agnostics" -- but, this can be misleading or just PC gamesmanship.

 

[jonesdon]

1) Actually, I'm pretty sure we had causes and effects well before the Renaissance, but I don't want to be pedantic. Perhaps you mean cause/effect based arguments for God's existence go back to the Renaissance. In fact, they too go back much farther. But that is just an argument from antiquity. 2) The problem, as I've explained in the post above, is that neither Aquinas nor Aristotle, upon whom Aquinas' theology rested, had any concept of Newtonian physics or its implications. Neither did they have a modern understanding of cosmology. Our evolved understanding completely eviscerates the force of their ancient arguments. 3) As for extrapolation, it is only justified if one can properly assume a pattern will continue past the point of the current defined set. The problem is that we can't make this assumption past the Big Bang, so extrapolation of causality is unjustified.

=== RESP: 1) OK. 2) As I said, "we'll see", I see that the args are adaptable. But, again, if you'd rather work beyond human comprehension w the infinite regression or don't care about the origin, OK. I do care and God is a good, reasonable answer. 3) Yes, I agree on the "pattern". No, we disagree that, logically, we can assume a pattern beyond (before) the Big Bang. Works for me and millions of other Americans. This is, realizing that most don't go so deep into this, but, rather just accept & are satisfied w the God solution.

 

[jonesdon]

you seem to have a nostalgic longing for the 50s and 60s. Perhaps you should sit down for a few seasons of Mad Men to see how much "better" society was back then -- especially for African-Americans, women, homosexuals, and just about anyone not a male WASP. Or perhaps your nostalgia is greater for America of the early 1800s. That was really a banner time for the non-WASP set as well. Oh, to return to the days of slavery, before women could vote. Good times.

=== RESP: Yep, we can always choose the negative in anything, huh? That another big difference that we have. So, you don't see (or want to see) America's progress?

 

[lumberjohn]

=== 1) Yes, precisely, my point -- you have been, and are, missing something. Some of us are (also) spiritually minded. Being "minded" is about the action, not the brain matter.

What on Earth does it mean to be "spiritually minded?" You are hiding behind a vague and obscure term.

2) Not having concepts "outside the box" (i.e. beyond the material world), apparently, you can't see the limitations as "this is just the way humans are". But, we can be much more in realizing our potential. I've indicated several times, in several ways, how only seeing the physical is seeing only half the deck. And, I could argue, you're missing the most important half. Most Americans realize this.

You've offered no reason to believe there is any other half to the deck. I believe the material world is the whole deck. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[lumberjohn]

Yes, I agree on the "pattern". No, we disagree that, logically, we can assume a pattern beyond (before) the Big Bang. Works for me and millions of other Americans. This is, realizing that most don't go so deep into this, but, rather just accept & are satisfied w the God solution.

Whether we can assume a pattern beyond the Big Bang is not a question of logic, but of physics, and the overwhelming consensus of physicists disagrees with you. While it may work for you and other non-scientifically literate Americans, you can't possibly expect to convince anyone else. You are taking a stand on an issue on which you have no expertise against the consensus of relevant experts. You might as well claim the Earth is flat.

Thank you for acknowledging what I think we all here ultimately know. Most people don't question or do any analysis of whether their religious beliefs can be justified with reason and evidence. They just accept what their preachers tell them "and are satisfied with the God solution." Once again, while that may "work" for them, it isn't going to work for anyone they are trying to persuade. Once you start relying on statements like this, you have effectively conceded the argument.

 

[lumberjohn]

=== RESP: Yep, we can always choose the negative in anything, huh? That another big difference that we have. So, you don't see (or want to see) America's progress?

Are we in Bizarro world? You were the one negatively comparing today's secular society with the God fearing past of 200/60 years ago. I was the one citing the present as progress! Make up your mind.

 

[Davian]

Now, be nice. You made the claim,

I made no claim.

so tell me about your experiments?

Not my experiments.

Is it possible you believe in dark matter/energy as a matter of trust in the integrity of those making the report?

No, it is not possible. While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market.

We

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

call that "accepting by faith".

I call it the "equivocations game". "Y'all have faith that that chair will hold you? Faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow? That's the same as the faith I have in my Lord Jesus."

Try something... new.

As to your "nothing" statement: I clearly offered "intuition" as a function of what is known as "spirit".

No, you alluded to science in an attempt to legitimize a religious term. What you offered was of no scientific significance.

You may have different thoughts and that's fine. I merely answered the question.

No, you didn't. You brought in science, and tried to move the goalposts around so as to have me defending quantum mechanics and astrophysics; but you fail at that: even if quantum mechanics and astrophysics were pseudoscience, you would still be on the hook to define what you meant by "spirit" in some testable, falsifiable manner. It was just a smokescreen.

What you believe is not my concern.

Why are you here?

 

[jonesdon]

1) Rather than raging about the atheist "agenda," why not just articulate your question more clearly as several of us have reasonably requested? 2) If I were to ask you "Deal or no deal?" how would you respond? You would probably have no idea because you aren't even sure what I'm talking about. You might understand the terms in isolation, but in the context of this question there is much that is unclear. 3) Likewise, people have very different understandings of what is meant by "God." 4) For some, it is a passive "first cause" that can be demonstrated by logic alone. For others, it is a more active being that intervenes in the physical universe and is therefore, at least in theory, detectable through empirical means. 5) For still others, it is an emergent quality of the universe, such as for those who say "God is nature" or "God is love." Also, what do you mean by "better?" 6) Perhaps you are talking about whether belief in God would improve your social standing or make you happier. 7) Perhaps you are asking whether such belief is more intellectually defensible than the alternatives. 8) I think it is perfectly reasonable to delve a bit deeper into your question so that we can formulate an appropriate response. 9) It is pretty common to attempt to reach agreement on the definitions of key terms before beginning a discussion. It need not suggest any nefarious ulterior motive.

=== RESP: 1) No raging, just a statement of observations of atheists -- as seen by myself & others. 2) I already answered this -- no subject in "deal or no deal". God is a subject,

3) A bit of frustration in your ignoring my first simple question that I asked -- that most reasonable people could address & answer (w/o going deep into a philosophy of God)! But, now that I've laid my foundation -- to answer your perspective of views of God:

4) Yes, some (like Deists) see a "passive 1st cause". Most today see an active 1st cause-- as I do. Is there some problem with logic? Yes, detectable by observing the awesomeness & splendor of science -- as in the universe -- addressing those issues that science can't answer e.g. Dark Energy. Empirical means?

5) Yes, some, esp. New Age, sees God as a quality, as a personification. I see God as the quality clarifier -- the bounds, max & min, greatest & least, first & last (Alpha & Omega), ... Think of Calculus -- the infinitesimal, trig & algebra -- the asymptote & use of infinity, Physics -- the quantum, ... We only know "better" by comparison to the "best" which is God.

6) Nope. This is not the first response or perspective of most Americans -- who are w/o deep philos. consideration. But, yes, believing in, and following, a God can lead to being more happy and/or comfortable -- as I've indicated. 7) It's more than just "intellectually defensible".

8) Yes, eventually (or now). But, this is way beyond my 1st simple question! 9) Yes, again, w my basic postings, we can attempt to agree on definitions of things. But, from your response so far, this is going to be very difficult.

 

[jonesdon]

Are we in Bizarro world? You were the one negatively comparing today's secular society with the God fearing past of 200/60 years ago. I was the one citing the present as progress! Make up your mind.

=== REPLY: You just switched the topic & spin, again! Anyone else can see that, yes, I am concerned (call it "negative") about our current social trend toward a Godless society. And, that this is very different than seeing pros & cons of our Amer. tradition (esp the last 60 yrs) and choosing to bring out the positives needed in today's America. So, you have a problem w this?

 

[jonesdon]

1) Whether we can assume a pattern beyond the Big Bang is not a question of logic, but of physics, and the overwhelming consensus of physicists disagrees with you. 2) While it may work for you and other non-scientifically literate Americans, you can't possibly expect to convince anyone else. 3) You are taking a stand on an issue on which you have no expertise against the consensus of relevant experts. 4) You might as well claim the Earth is flat. 5) Thank you for acknowledging what I think we all here ultimately know. Most people don't question or do any analysis of whether their religious beliefs can be justified with reason and evidence. They just accept what their preachers tell them "and are satisfied with the God solution." Once again, while that may "work" for them, it isn't going to work for anyone they are trying to persuade. 6) Once you start relying on statements like this, you have effectively conceded the argument.

=== REPLY: 1) Ask Stephen Hawkins (Mr. Big Bang) abt. this one! He, now, admits that another Big Bang had to occur before, and another before that -- hence, the infinite regression. This is physics? I say no. BTW: This brings Aquinas up to today -- or vice versa, Hawkins back to Aquinas!

2) BTW: Do you consider yourself to be "scientifically literate"? 3) So, I have no expertise here? Hmmm. How do you know? So, find a physicist that can prove me wrong -- i.e. that has a better solution to the origin of the universe! Otherwise, it is illogical to call me wrong. Hint: Don't ask Dawkins! ;-( BTW: Have you read Dawkins, Harris, or Russell? 4) Just a baloney tag-on which has nothing to do w the issue.

5) Yes, this is a no-brainer. The issue really is what the consequences are and what should be done about it. I see such people gullible to your negative, no-God, perspective. A solution is more education -- not for all to become such physics or philos. experts, but, in the line of critical thinking which is being lost -- now for several generations. This is part of the negative trend that I see in our country moving in the Godless direction. 6) Huh? What statements and conceding what argument?

 

[jonesdon]

... No, it is not possible. While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market. ... Why are you here?

=== RESP: Suddenly, you've lost your curiosity about Dark Energy? Fact is, that scientists have not reached any conclusions or even have clues. They are just trying to find something to add to their "perfect" equations to make them work!

Meanwhile, we God-people, theists, have a possible answer -- until scientists come up w a better answer. How about Dark Energy, simply, being the continuation of God's creation -- to continue to supply the universe w energy?

 

[Davian]

=== RESP:

My name is not RESP.

Suddenly, you've lost your curiosity about Dark Energy?

Where did I say that?

Fact is, that scientists have not reached any conclusions or even have clues. They are just trying to find something to add to their "perfect" equations to make them work!

Provide a citation for this "fact".

Meanwhile, we God-people,

Are you their spokesperson?

theists, have a possible answer -- until scientists come up w a better answer.

Please show how "goddidit" is a possible answer.

How about Dark Energy, simply, being the continuation of God's creation

Scientifically define what you mean by "God"

-- to continue to supply the universe w energy?

Since when does the universe need a supply of energy that it does not already have? Can you provide a scientific citation for this?

 

[jonesdon]

=== REPLY: 1) Suddenly, you've lost your curiosity about Dark Energy? -- Where did I say that? [You said: "While I may follow the topic with interest, their conclusions do not really concern me. It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market"]

2) a) Fact is, that scientists have not reached any conclusions or even have clues. b) They are just trying to find something to add to their "perfect" equations to make them work! -- Provide a citation for this "fact". [No citation needed. For a), I can't provide a negative (no reports about no conclusions). You need to show me where scientists have done such w Dark Energy. b) Is my conclusion. ]

3) Meanwhile, we God-people, -- Are you their spokesperson? [Of course not. What indicates this? I just say that, as a God believing person, I make these comments. How could you spin this?]

4) theists, have a possible answer -- until scientists come up w a better answer. -- Please show how "goddidit" is a possible answer. [Show? Huh? I just stated a suggestion! What word(s) don't you understand? "How about Dark Energy, simply, being the continuation of God's creation -- to continue to supply the universe w (addtl) energy?" ]

5) -- to continue to supply the universe w energy? -- Since when does the universe need a supply of energy that it does not already have? Can you provide a scientific citation for this? [Again, no cite needed. And, there's nothing about the universe "needing a supply of energy". The fact is, from basic (recent) science, w many references, that the universe is not only expanding, but at an increasingly greater rate. This requires added energy, as God provide during creation -- and common sense.]

6) God ... -- Scientifically define what you mean by "God" [So, you want me to define a spiritual entity in terms of physical qualities? Obviously, you can't bridge this gap of concepts. Apparently, you only have the capacity (or the will) for the physical, scientific half of our humanity.]