Why are there religious people?

[quatona]

God can be known to exist in the same way love is known to exist.

Please elaborate on this method.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

God can be known to exist in the same way love is known to exist. Neither one is observable empirically.

Show me an example of both existing in an objective manner outside of human (subjective) influence please.

 

[FireDragon76]

Show me an example of both existing in an objective manner outside of human (subjective) influence please.

So let me get this straight... you don't believe love exists?

 

[bhsmte]

So let me get this straight... you don't believe love exists?

Love is a human emotion, which is perceived specifically by the person perceiving the same.

Do emotions exist? Yes, how does this relate to a God existing?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

So let me get this straight... you don't believe love exists?

No. I don't believe Hatred exists either. I don't believe 2 exists. I don't believe Voldemort exists.

If all the humans died out, "love" would go with them. Along with hatred, 2, and Voldemort.

They all only exist in our mind. They're the meaning we give to certain things in our reality. But don't have any affect on reality itself.

Good example: If there are two stones somewhere in the Sahara desert next to one another, but no one is there to witness them. Are they still two stones?

They don't exist until there is a mind to identify them as two stones. And once those minds that identified them perish they will go back to being nonexistent until someone identifies that they do in fact exist.

But in reality those two stones are gonna be there whether someone is there to see them or not. Regardless of interpretation that they are "two" "stones" in "the Sahara Desert" they will stay right where they are in their place.

Once there is nothing left to interpret these meanings then the meanings and the words themselves also are nullified. But reality itself remains unchanged.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God can be known to exist in the same way love is known to exist. Neither one is observable empirically.

Love doesn't exist objectively though,...it's completely subjective and exists only in your mind.

When looked at that way, it's a lot like your god.

 

[zippy2006]

But I don't see it as stating "all things being equal" because it's not a qualifier for a typical context: in most contexts, there would be a reason to disbelieve most people's testimony. All things being equal ... there is typically a reason.

I disagree. Why do you say that?

So for there to exist the absence of any reason to disbelieve someone's testimony, I would need an example to look at. The example which you provided doesn't fit the criteria, because there is reason to disbelieve a person who is a complete stranger to me, and stops me and tells me there is an accident up ahead.

What reason is that?

All things being equal, it may be a rather common occurrence and so I may take for granted the idea they may be lying or some such,

You're introducing a reason to disbelieve that was not present in my scenario and isn't common. If everyone lies to you in a certain area, then you would have reason to disbelieve persons witnessing some fact to you in that area. But that would be an artificial insertion into the scenario I provided.

Because there does exist reason to disbelieve them: I'm not yet witnessing the accident, for one.

So you are saying that if you don't witness it, you won't believe it? That lack of personal witness is a reason to disbelieve?

So what kinds of testimony are being described here then ? Someone claiming that they witnessed supernatural beings descending from a building, is a bit different from someone who is warning of an accident up ahead. One is more extraordinary, and one is more mundane. I'm sure you are no stranger to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While I'm not going to state that as a law, I do find the concept holds up quite often, in that what is extraordinary to someone is often met with a desire to substantiate it with equally extraordinary evidence/proof/etc. So in a similar way that crises has to do with some kinds of testimony, depending on what types of testimony you are referring to here (religious for example) then the reasons to disbelieve do become factors. That's reality.Well I'm assuming you're talking to me and not Cearbhall so perhaps focus on what we are talking about.

First, as you noted there is nothing extraordinary about my scenario so I would like to continue to focus on it.

The ordinary/extraordinary distinction is unnecessary; the principle suffices. Let extraordinary be defined as "Thought to be improbable according to the person's previous experiences" (or something like that). This constitutes a reason for disbelief (or at least a reason for doubt). Similarly, if someone came up to me and told me, "There is a square circle up ahead at the intersection!" ...I would disbelieve them, because I know this to be a logical impossibility. It is a reason to disbelieve.

I may argue they are actually expressing their beliefs. Later, their beliefs may catch up with the reality they are facing, so they would claim their prize.

Consider the stages of grief: denial is often one of the stages of grief. It's not that the person isn't living in "reality" however parts of them have not come to terms with it, thus I'm not sure if one could point definitively to their belief and say, "Yes they fully believe in reality at this moment." After all, they may be in denial ... denying some aspect of reality while consenting to a related aspect at the same time. Could I definitively state what a person's "belief" actually is or isn't in such a context ? I'd probably say that I couldn't ... but I may argue a person could be justified in questioning whether or not they actually believe what is happening, even while going along with it. There is a reason things can seem unreal, surreal, unbelievable, and take time to accept, come to terms with, understand, believe, acknowledge, etc. Belief is arguably often a result, not necessarily a cause.

Even if this is so, it is just another instance of the extraordinary event. There are competing principles: the principle to believe what their eyes show them, and the fact that they know that winning the lottery is highly improbable. (Doesn't fit the criteria)

Yes it was a mistype. I meant to say "disbelieve". I've been making a lot of mistypes lately ... laziness and distraction.

Ha, no worries!

Based on just what you've said here and forgetting the qualifier of the "principle" ... absolutely not. If the only piece of data you possess, is the testimony of someone ... "ought you believe ?" ... no. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. But ought you to ? No, not necessarily. Testimony, as stated by others ... is very unreliable, even from well meaning individuals. In my experience, a person who recalls an event or gives an account may be able to give a more accurate description if they have had training in how to observe, think critically, etc (consider medical professionals, law enforcement, etc) ... but even then, depending on the context such people can be just as unreliable as the next person. And of course there are those who intentionally set out to deceive, obviously.

You're conflating testimony with an eyewitness account. By "testimony" I simply mean that someone testifies to a belief they hold. That is, they assert something they believe to be true.

Again, I think you're confusing "testimony" with some variables that attach to some kinds of testimony. But that means that it's wrong to say that testimony is in itself unreliable. It is the additional variable, not the testimony, that leads to the conclusion that the person is unreliable.

Testimony in itself isn't evidence for belief, it is evidence that a person is making a claim about something that has yet to be substantiated. Some may take that and formulate a belief from it, but some may not. Some may be claiming what they/themselves believe, and in that regard I could see how testimony itself is evidence for belief. That would be like saying, "Is a person saying they have a belief, evidence they have a belief ?" Maybe. Can testimony be accurate and describe truth ? Of course. Can it be false ? Of course. Will people trust each other on word alone ? Of course. Ought they ? Not necessarily.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's suppose you think that testimony is intrinsically unreliable. That is to say, the beliefs of others are unreliable. Supposing this really applies to all testimony, as you have claimed, it must be in virtue of something that all people have in common. We could say that it is due to their being human. But you are human! Do you disbelieve your own beliefs? Do you believe your own beliefs to be unreliable? When you are standing in the street and your senses lead you to form the belief that a car is coming at you, do you decide to stay put because testimony/beliefs, including your own, are unreliable? (Now we're moving closer to the Principle of Credulity).

Let me give you an example, and perhaps you can tell me if and how the Principle of Testimony applies:

A person in front of you claims, "I feel a seizure coming on," and within seconds starts going into what appears to be some type of seizure to you.

Can you tell me if and how the Principle of Testimony may apply to this situation ?

Here are a list of possible reasons to disbelieve:

• I know this person's history and it reveals that they are commonly mistaken in diagnosing their own seizures (perhaps they are a hypochondriac or something of the like).
• I know that seizures are often mistakenly self-diagnosed in general (perhaps it is common for people to mistake a stroke for a seizure, etc.).
• I know that persons in this area are charlatans who fake such episodes.
• (There may be other reasons as well)

If these reasons are not present, then yes I would accept them at their word that they are having a seizure.

Well your point kinda stinks...lawyers have a professional obligation. It wouldn't matter if I thought a witness were credible or not...if I did not call them and they could've persuaded a jury, a mistrial can be declared.

So you're saying you might call them if the jury is particularly stupid and could be fooled by (intrinsically unreliable) eyewitness testimony, but you wouldn't call them for an intelligent jury?

Remember that you called into question eyewitness testimony in general, not merely the eyewitness testimony of a particular person. Therefore it makes no sense to talk about a witness ("...if I thought a witness were credible or not..."). Calling into question the eyewitness testimony of a particular individual would obviously require some reason to disbelieve them.

I understand you may not know anything about the professional/ethical obligations of lawyers in the U.S.... that's why I'm telling you. It's a bogus example/point that you're trying to make so come up with another.

lol. You came up with it, not me. I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony until you raised that specter.

 

[TheBarrd]

You're absolutely right. What you wanna teach is your business.

But when it comes to education and children we should use material that are grounded in the real world. Same sex couples and parenting are normal and common. I don't see what makes them any less normal than a man who's left handed in a world that designs tools for only right handed people. Or less normal than someone who is born with gigantism in a world building doors for people six feet and under.

 

[TheBarrd]

None of what you state, changes the fact it is naturally occurring in humans and animals and always has been.

So, let me get this straight...if it occurs naturally in humans and animals, it should be legal?

Did you actually read the entire post? One of the most common behaviors in the animal kingdom would be incest, and especially with younger members of the group. This is much more common than homosexual behavior.
So, uh.....let's legalize incest, right?

 

[TheBarrd]

What does the bible have to say about abortion?

Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree. Why do you say that?



What reason is that?



You're introducing a reason to disbelieve that was not present in my scenario and isn't common. If everyone lies to you in a certain area, then you would have reason to disbelieve persons witnessing some fact to you in that area. But that would be an artificial insertion into the scenario I provided.



So you are saying that if you don't witness it, you won't believe it? That lack of personal witness is a reason to disbelieve?



First, as you noted there is nothing extraordinary about my scenario so I would like to continue to focus on it.

The ordinary/extraordinary distinction is unnecessary; the principle suffices. Let extraordinary be defined as "Thought to be improbable according to the person's previous experiences" (or something like that). This constitutes a reason for disbelief (or at least a reason for doubt). Similarly, if someone came up to me and told me, "There is a square circle up ahead at the intersection!" ...I would disbelieve them, because I know this to be a logical impossibility. It is a reason to disbelieve.



Even if this is so, it is just another instance of the extraordinary event. There are competing principles: the principle to believe what their eyes show them, and the fact that they know that winning the lottery is highly improbable. (Doesn't fit the criteria)



Ha, no worries!



You're conflating testimony with an eyewitness account. By "testimony" I simply mean that someone testifies to a belief they hold. That is, they assert something they believe to be true.

Again, I think you're confusing "testimony" with some variables that attach to some kinds of testimony. But that means that it's wrong to say that testimony is in itself unreliable. It is the additional variable, not the testimony, that leads to the conclusion that the person is unreliable.



Let me try a different approach.

Let's suppose you think that testimony is intrinsically unreliable. That is to say, the beliefs of others are unreliable. Supposing this really applies to all testimony, as you have claimed, it must be in virtue of something that all people have in common. We could say that it is due to their being human. But you are human! Do you disbelieve your own beliefs? Do you believe your own beliefs to be unreliable? When you are standing in the street and your senses lead you to form the belief that a car is coming at you, do you decide to stay put because testimony/beliefs, including your own, are unreliable? (Now we're moving closer to the Principle of Credulity).



Here are a list of possible reasons to disbelieve:

• I know this person's history and it reveals that they are commonly mistaken in diagnosing their own seizures (perhaps they are a hypochondriac or something of the like).
• I know that seizures are often mistakenly self-diagnosed in general (perhaps it is common for people to mistake a stroke for a seizure, etc.).
• I know that persons in this area are charlatans who fake such episodes.
• (There may be other reasons as well)

If these reasons are not present, then yes I would accept them at their word that they are having a seizure.



So you're saying you might call them if the jury is particularly stupid and could be fooled by (intrinsically unreliable) eyewitness testimony, but you wouldn't call them for an intelligent jury?

Remember that you called into question eyewitness testimony in general, not merely the eyewitness testimony of a particular person. Therefore it makes no sense to talk about a witness ("...if I thought a witness were credible or not..."). Calling into question the eyewitness testimony of a particular individual would obviously require some reason to disbelieve them.



lol. You came up with it, not me. I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony until you raised that specter.

I'm not sure if you just keep ignoring what I say on purpose or if you simply don't understand...

Would you like me to Google for you examples of cases being retried because a lawyer didn't explore every means of defending his client? If a lawyer doesn't call potential witnesses, he can be replaced and the case retried...it doesn't always matter if the witnesses are of good/poor quality.

It's because of this specific professional obligation that your example fails.

 

[TheBarrd]

You're absolutely right. What you wanna teach is your business.

But when it comes to education and children we should use material that are grounded in the real world. Same sex couples and parenting are normal and common. I don't see what makes them any less normal than a man who's left handed in a world that designs tools for only right handed people. Or less normal than someone who is born with gigantism in a world building doors for people six feet and under.

Now, why do you suppose that most tools are made for right handed people, or why doors for someone who is born with gigantism must be built to order?
While such things do occur, I'd hardly call them "normal".
And same sex parents are not normal. Two women or two men cannot produce children. It is not natural for them to be parents.
I know a gay couple...two women, an interracial couple...one of them had a child from a previous encounter...seems she used to be straight, but later "chose" to be gay...not my words, hers.
Anyway, most of the time, to the casual observer, it seems everything is honky dory...

Or it was, up till about a year ago. It seems the child complained that her mother's partner was touching her in inappropriate ways.
Anyhow, the natural father sued for custody and won...seems he's remarried...to a woman...and the court decided that he was the better parent.

 

[TheBarrd]

Your statement was that it wasn't natural... it is by your own admission.

No one said that because it's natural it should be legal...the reasons that it should be legal are entirely different.

But now at least we all know you realize it's perfectly natural.

Somehow I get the distinct feeling that you did not read the entire post.
Not that it matters...

Carry on...

 

[bhsmte]

So, let me get this straight...if it occurs naturally in humans and animals, it should be legal?

Did you actually read the entire post? One of the most common behaviors in the animal kingdom would be incest, and especially with younger members of the group. This is much more common than homosexual behavior.
So, uh.....let's legalize incest, right?

You know how you made a big deal out of people comparing the blacks fighting for equal rights to gays fighting for equal rights. Well, I am calling the same thing on you comparing incest to homosexuality with two consenting adults.

 

[TillICollapse]

I disagree. Why do you say that?

What reason is that?

A reason to disbelieve, would arguably be any reason in a scenario which could a person could base disbelief upon, and it would seem to me that such reasons would typically be contingent upon circumstance. In the case of the car accident up ahead, I'm assuming I haven't observed it yet. Thus, that leaves questions of this strangers account which facilitate reasons one may disbelieve.

You're introducing a reason to disbelieve that was not present in my scenario and isn't common. If everyone lies to you in a certain area, then you would have reason to disbelieve persons witnessing some fact to you in that area. But that would be an artificial insertion into the scenario I provided.

What isn't common: lying ? Your qualifier addresses the absence of ANY reason to disbelieve. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not, if it's a reason it's a reason.

So you are saying that if you don't witness it, you won't believe it? That lack of personal witness is a reason to disbelieve?

I didn't say that if I don't witness it I won't believe it. A reason to disbelieve, verses believing or disbelieving something are two different things.

First, as you noted there is nothing extraordinary about my scenario so I would like to continue to focus on it.

The ordinary/extraordinary distinction is unnecessary; the principle suffices. Let extraordinary be defined as "Thought to be improbable according to the person's previous experiences" (or something like that). This constitutes a reason for disbelief (or at least a reason for doubt). Similarly, if someone came up to me and told me, "There is a square circle up ahead at the intersection!" ...I would disbelieve them, because I know this to be a logical impossibility. It is a reason to disbelieve.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You said you wanted to focus on non-extraordinary, and then immediately start addressing what you think would be extraordinary. Also, your reason for disbelief in the example you gave seems fine ... just as fine for my previous reason per your previous example. So perhaps pick a new example for us to work with.

Even if this is so, it is just another instance of the extraordinary event. There are competing principles: the principle to believe what their eyes show them, and the fact that they know that winning the lottery is highly improbable. (Doesn't fit the criteria)



Ha, no worries!

You're conflating testimony with an eyewitness account. By "testimony" I simply mean that someone testifies to a belief they hold. That is, they assert something they believe to be true.

Again, I think you're confusing "testimony" with some variables that attach to some kinds of testimony. But that means that it's wrong to say that testimony is in itself unreliable. It is the additional variable, not the testimony, that leads to the conclusion that the person is unreliable.

Perhaps to cut through all the semantics then, provide another example which you'd like to address which we can work with. I already stated that I was uncertain of some of the goalposts concerning the "principles", so instead of me trying to figure out what they are, perhaps you can state them more clearly and use another scenario. That previous example doesn't seem to cut it imo, so feel free to pick another.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's suppose you think that testimony is intrinsically unreliable. That is to say, the beliefs of others are unreliable. Supposing this really applies to all testimony, as you have claimed, it must be in virtue of something that all people have in common. We could say that it is due to their being human. But you are human! Do you disbelieve your own beliefs? Do you believe your own beliefs to be unreliable? When you are standing in the street and your senses lead you to form the belief that a car is coming at you, do you decide to stay put because testimony/beliefs, including your own, are unreliable? (Now we're moving closer to the Principle of Credulity).

I don't believe I claimed that ALL testimony is unreliable. I don't believe it is, so I don't see why I would have stated that.

Here are a list of possible reasons to disbelieve:

• I know this person's history and it reveals that they are commonly mistaken in diagnosing their own seizures (perhaps they are a hypochondriac or something of the like).
• I know that seizures are often mistakenly self-diagnosed in general (perhaps it is common for people to mistake a stroke for a seizure, etc.).
• I know that persons in this area are charlatans who fake such episodes.
• (There may be other reasons as well)

If these reasons are not present, then yes I would accept them at their word that they are having a seizure.

Okay so in this example, you've identified reasons which could yield a person to disbelieve. So right there it's not a good example that speaks to the principle, again because of that qualifier in the principle ("the absence of any reason to disbelieve"). Since the reasons to disbelieve are present in possibility and may be pursued in order to rule them out, it's not a good example perhaps to your principle. This is why I am having a hard time conceptualizing a relevant scenario that actually speaks to the "principle". The only one I could think of which comes close is if I'm sitting there observing directly the thing being testified about to where the main reasons I would "disbelieve" would arguably be due to a cognitive deficiency perhaps. Otherwise, again ... perhaps think up an example we can look at lol.

I think the problem is going to be that the "principle" ultimately fails to be applicable in a real world, practical scenario that deals with typical religious claims. Remove the qualifier, and it's a "principle" that can be easily dismissed due to the unreliability which often can be shown in testimony. That qualifier is what makes it specific to a certain context which doesn't go much beyond that context.

How about this: let's focus on a religious claim. Show me a "religious" themed type of testimony to where there is NO reason present to disbelieve.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Somehow I get the distinct feeling that you did not read the entire post.
Not that it matters...

Carry on...

Sure, I read the whole post. Your point was that just because something is natural doesn't mean it should be legal. I agree completely. I also agree that it's completely natural.

Your original point about it being "unnatural" has been well refuted now...by yourself.

 

[Colter]

Love doesn't exist objectively though,...it's completely subjective and exists only in your mind.

When looked at that way, it's a lot like your god.

God is Love but Love is not God, God is more than Love.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is Love but Love is not God, God is more than Love.

Is there a trophy for "most illogical post"?

 

[Colter]

Is there a trophy for "most illogical post"?

Good night cranky

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good night cranky

Lol is it your bedtime already? Where are you from?