Why are there religious people?

[zippy2006]

Consider the following two examples:

Thanks for your detailed response! I would be happy to move on and consider your long post, but not before we settle the simpler matter I brought up. Do you agree with the Principle of Testimony as I have presented it? There's no reason to start talking about complicated scenarios with multiple persons and beliefs if we can't even agree on the simplest scenario.

 

[TillICollapse]

Thanks for your detailed response! I would be happy to move on and consider your long post, but not before we settle the simpler matter I brought up. Do you agree with the Principle of Testimony as I have presented it? There's no reason to start talking about complicated scenarios with multiple persons and beliefs if we can't even agree on the simplest scenario.

I looked up those terms.

• Principle of Credulity – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve it, one should accept what appears to be true (e.g., if one sees someone walking on water, one should believe that it is occurring)
• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eyewitnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.

No at first glance, I don't agree with them.

Concerning the Principle of Credulity, accepting what is happening on a practical level, verses what one believes about it ... are two different things.

Concerning the Principle of Testimony, it seems like a variation of a basic argument from ignorance. It seems like a basic attempt to rationalize why someone's account should be believed and accepted for no other reason than you can't yet prove a negative concerning their account.

With both principles, those qualifiers of "with the absence of any reason to disbelieve it" is a major qualifier, and that phrase: "should believe" would need some clarifying. A psych patient who is convinced that the nurse is a policeman who is there to steal their wallet, has no reason to disbelieve such a thing from their point of view and altered cognition. They may not be able to perceive things differently. And no, I don't believe they *should* believe what they are believing. Do they ? Yes. Should they ? I would probably argue no.

 

[zippy2006]

I looked up those terms.

• Principle of Credulity – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve it, one should accept what appears to be true (e.g., if one sees someone walking on water, one should believe that it is occurring)
• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eyewitnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.

No at first glance, I don't agree with them.

Why not? Do you have a counter-example? In your post you gave one counter-example:

A psych patient who is convinced that the nurse is a policeman who is there to steal their wallet, has no reason to disbelieve such a thing from their point of view and altered cognition. They may not be able to perceive things differently. And no, I don't believe they *should* believe what they are believing. Do they ? Yes. Should they ? I would probably argue no.

I don't quite understand where you mean to go with this. Which principle are you aiming at here? I assume you are speaking to the Principle of Credulity, but I asked you about the Principle of Testimony...? It may be interesting to talk about the Principle of Credulity, but it isn't clear that it is related to this thread. So do you have any counter-arguments against the Principle of Testimony? Let me rephrase it, since it isn't restricted to religion:

• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that persons are telling the truth when they testify about a belief they hold to be objectively true.

With both principles, those qualifiers of "with the absence of any reason to disbelieve it" is a major qualifier, and that phrase: "should believe" would need some clarifying.

You might see it as a major qualifier, but it is really just highlighting the ceteris paribus nature in which all principles ought to be taken. "Should believe" or "should accept" indicates a kind of rational justification. So we could say that they are rationally justified in believing and irrational in disbelieving.

 

[Cearbhall]

The point you keep missing is that, unless you have some firsthand knowledge...you've been to Pluto and have explored every crevice in it...or you have some serious evidence, you cannot know what or who might live on Pluto. As ridiculous as it seems, your stance that no alien named Greeble lives there is based on faith.
Naming the alien doesn't change that.

Why are you so intent on framing our views as a type of faith? Is it really so important to you that we have "faith" of some kind, even if it's not the kind you want us to have? It's all just a matter of semantics, and I don't see what you have to gain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why not? Do you have a counter-example? In your post you gave one counter-example:



I don't quite understand where you mean to go with this. Which principle are you aiming at here? I assume you are speaking to the Principle of Credulity, but I asked you about the Principle of Testimony...? It may be interesting to talk about the Principle of Credulity, but it isn't clear that it is related to this thread. So do you have any counter-arguments against the Principle of Testimony? Let me rephrase it, since it isn't restricted to religion:

• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that persons are telling the truth when they testify about a belief they hold to be objectively true.

You might see it as a major qualifier, but it is really just highlighting the ceteris paribus nature in which all principles ought to be taken. "Should believe" or "should accept" indicates a kind of rational justification. So we could say that they are rationally justified in believing and irrational in disbelieving.

Are you saying we should believe that the person giving testimony believes what they are saying? Or...

Are you saying we should believe the testimony as given?

I don't think your Principle of Testimony makes it clear as you've described it.

 

[bhsmte]

Why are you so intent on framing our views as a type of faith? Is it really so important to you that we have "faith" of some kind, even if it's not the kind you want us to have? It's all just a matter of semantics, and I don't see what you have to gain.

Common thing with some Christians. If they rely on faith, they need to convince themselves non believers do as well.

 

[zippy2006]

Are you saying we should believe that the person giving testimony believes what they are saying? Or...

Are you saying we should believe the testimony as given?

I don't think your Principle of Testimony makes it clear as you've described it.

Sorry, I was just retaining that language from the Wikipedia article. I am saying that you should believe the testimony as given. You should believe that it is true. Good question.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, I was just retaining that language from the Wikipedia article. I am saying that you should believe the testimony as given. You should believe that it is true. Good question.

Why should the testimony be believed as given?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I was just retaining that language from the Wikipedia article. I am saying that you should believe the testimony as given. You should believe that it is true. Good question.

Then it's a horrible principle lol.

For many many reasons, but chiefly amongst them would be the fact that eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable. This is scientific fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I was just retaining that language from the Wikipedia article. I am saying that you should believe the testimony as given. You should believe that it is true. Good question.

We should have trophies for double posts.

 

[Cearbhall]

Common thing with some Christians. If they rely on faith, they need to convince themselves non believers do as well.

I'm imagining someone writing on a test that scientists rely on faith even when they haven't constructed a hypothesis yet.

 

[TillICollapse]

Why not? Do you have a counter-example? In your post you gave one counter-example:



I don't quite understand where you mean to go with this. Which principle are you aiming at here? I assume you are speaking to the Principle of Credulity, but I asked you about the Principle of Testimony...? It may be interesting to talk about the Principle of Credulity, but it isn't clear that it is related to this thread. So do you have any counter-arguments against the Principle of Testimony? Let me rephrase it, since it isn't restricted to religion:

In your first response to me, you mentioned both Principles. In your second response, you mentioned just the one, but I included them both for expedience in case you would ask me about both.

Yes my example was one that was speaking to the Principle of Credulity primarily. I'll didn't give an example speaking to the Principle of Testimony mostly because, as I said, I found it's qualifiers a bit lacking and in need of clarification. I'll explain more in a moment.

• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that persons are telling the truth when they testify about a belief they hold to be objectively true.

You might see it as a major qualifier, but it is really just highlighting the ceteris paribus nature in which all principles ought to be taken. "Should believe" or "should accept" indicates a kind of rational justification. So we could say that they are rationally justified in believing and irrational in disbelieving.

Yes I see it as a major qualifier ("the absence of any reason to disbelieve them") because it's placing a unique context on the situation, without providing a situation to actually examine. It's not the same as saying "All things being equal" rather it's unique in how it limits the context.

An example I could think of which may fit the bill, is if I'm actually observing directly what is being testified about. For example, if a person tells me, "Here is a box," and they are showing me a box, that may essentially be an example where there is absence of any reason to disbelieve them. For me to be looking right at the box, and yet deny it's there, would perhaps speak to an aspect of my ability to reason and perceive reality in that moment.

Yet ... plenty of people do this all the time ... they experience something and then in that moment, often claim, "I don't believe it," because of the nature of what is happening. Consider an incredible coincidence, or finding a boot full of millions of dollars on the road, etc. Somethings are beyond a person's common frame of reference, and even when they have no reason to disbelieve ... they do anyways, at least in those moments. It takes them time to actually accept what is happening.

However back to the topic ... I find it hard to conceptualize where someone is giving me testimony only, with no evidence for example ... and there is complete absence of any reason to believe them. If I'm not directly observing what they are testifying about, or I'm not looking at evidence ... then it's hard for me to imagine a situation where there is complete absence of ANY reason to disbelieve them. So perhaps you can provide an example. As it stands, being loosely clarified by lack of context, it does very much look like an attempt to make an argument from ignorance unquestioned or some such and I could see how this "Principle" is headed in that direction.

 

[zippy2006]

Why should the testimony be believed as given?

Why shouldn't it? That is the question. Should our prima facie attitude toward testimony qua testimony be one of belief or skepticism?

Then it's a horrible principle lol.

For many many reasons, but chiefly amongst them would be the fact that eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable. This is scientific fact.

lol. So if you were a lawyer, you wouldn't even call any witnesses? And as soon as a witness began to speak you would object, telling the judge, "Eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable! This is scientific fact!" I wonder then, what sort of testimony would you accept if not eyewitness testimony? Do you apply this to yourself? When you witness something like a car accident do you distrust your eyes?

Obviously I don't think your answer will hold much water at all, but it's also beside the point. I didn't say anything about "eyewitness testimony." Again, here is what I said:

• Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that persons are telling the truth when they testify about a belief they hold to be objectively true.

 

[Cearbhall]

lol. So if you were a lawyer, you wouldn't even call any witnesses? And as soon as a witness began to speak you would object, telling the judge, "Eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable! This is scientific fact!" I wonder then, what sort of testimony would you accept if not eyewitness testimony? Do you apply this to yourself? When you witness something like a car accident do you distrust your eyes?

Actually, yes, minus the objection. Everyone working on the case would be fully aware that eyewitness testimonies are horribly unreliable, thanks to scientific research. The human brain is awful at comprehending situations while in crisis. The contradictions that you see between testimonies are hilarious.

 

[bhsmte]

Why shouldn't it? That is the question. Should our prima facie attitude toward testimony qua testimony be one of belief or skepticism?

That would depend how credible the testimony is and if it can be objectively verified.

There is a reason they cross examine eye witnesses in court cases and many times, witnesses are impeached when their testimony is examined. Just because someone says or writes something, doesn't make it automatically true.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually, yes, minus the objection. Everyone working on the case would be fully aware that eyewitness testimonies are horribly unreliable, thanks to scientific research. The human brain is awful at comprehending situations while in crisis.

Who said anything about crisis? If the person is under stress then we have a reason to disbelieve their testimony, and thus the principle still holds. You all are importing things that that were never said. I never said anything about "eyewitness testimony" (or any of the baggage that comes with that term--baggage which contains reasons to disbelieve). My earlier example about the pedestrian telling you about an accident is a much better example.

I'll come back to this tomorrow...

 

[TillICollapse]

Why shouldn't it? That is the question. Should our prima facie attitude toward testimony qua testimony be one of belief or skepticism?



lol. So if you were a lawyer, you wouldn't even call any witnesses? And as soon as a witness began to speak you would object, telling the judge, "Eyewitness testimony is horribly unreliable! This is scientific fact!" I wonder then, what sort of testimony would you accept if not eyewitness testimony? Do you apply this to yourself? When you witness something like a car accident do you distrust your eyes?

Obviously I don't think your answer will hold much water at all, but it's also beside the point. I didn't say anything about "eyewitness testimony." Again, here is what I said:

Okay I see you've responded a bit to others concerning what is meant by that Principle.

Yes it's quite obvious that trusting people at their word isn't always beneficial. This much is obvious and goes without saying. Even well meaning people or those with no ill intent.

Your qualifier of "the absence of any reason to disbelieve them" is still the key element which needs more clarifying. Remove that qualifier, and someone with a story is just someone with a story. Substantiating evidence is often preferred to back their testimony, credibility can be considered, etc. An anecdote is an anecdote. However in the context of the absence of any reason to disbelieve ... again I think I'll need an example to look at so I know what that means to you.

 

[Cearbhall]

I never said anything about "eyewitness testimony" (or any of the baggage that comes with that term--baggage which contains reasons to disbelieve).

I was literally quoting you. I used the phrase because you did. It's all you talked about in the quote to which I replied...

 

[TheBarrd]

This is just a straw man. Yes of course "not holding a belief" is the same as "not having a belief". No one is arguing that.





You were twisting his words. I tried 3 times to explain why these statements are not the same.
So I'll try once more.
Not believing in Greeble is not the same as believing in no Greeble.
The first statement required absolutely no faith.

I'm sorry...are we both speaking English?
If you say you don't believe in TheBarrd, isn't that exactly the same as if you'd said "I have no belief in TheBarrd"???
I promise you, even if you say it three times, I will not go "poof". I'll still be right here, trying to figure out why this is so terribly important to you guys.
Is it really because you don't want anyone to accuse you of having faith that there is no alien named Greeble living on Pluto?

Would it make you terribly angry if I were to tell you that I have faith that there is no alien named Greeble living on Pluto?

As I said, he lives on one of the moons of Jupiter....

 

[Cearbhall]

Is it really because you don't want anyone to accuse you of having faith that there is no alien named Greeble living on Pluto?

Would it make you terribly angry if I were to tell you that I have faith that there is no alien named Greeble living on Pluto?

Now you've flipped it. We're simply wondering why you would want to "accuse" us of such a thing. It's not really insulting to me if someone defines the word "faith" in a different way than I do. The way that I feel about dear Greeble simply does not fit my own definition of "faith."