Why do some believe?

[brightlights]

As a naturalist, I, of course, favor a neurobiological explanation. Belief or skepticism is probably a function of brain architecture. The link refers to a study showing that people who've had born-again religious experiences have a larger hippocampus. Obviously, if this is a real finding, we don't know if it's a cause, an effect, or just associated with religious belief. Our understanding is very rudimentary. But it certainly seems to me that believers and non-believers just think differently in some respects. So it would make sense that their neural circuitry is different. I'm not suggesting, or even implying, that one is superior to the other. Just physiologically and functionally different.

Is There a Difference between the Brain of an Atheist and the Brain of a Religious Person?: Scientific American

BTW: This would, in a way, relate to a Calvinist's unconditional election. It would be how God's elect come to faith in Jesus. He simply hard-wires their brains to be believers.

From a non-theistic perspective I think that this is the best explanation. It is curious, though. If one is inclined toward faith and the other inclined away from faith can we really trust our brains to be objective truth producing organs? It's not as if one is inclined toward truth and the other is inclined toward non-truth. Am I right?

 

[brightlights]

I assume a non believer (in the context of this thread) would include believers of other god(s)?

For the purposes of simplicity I'd like to temporarily limit our conversation to the western world and compare Christian belief to secular belief. Though you do raise another good issue within the conversation. Can we focus on the former for a while before we introduce the complications of the latter?

 

[brightlights]

I highly doubt that there is only one filtering difference.

It may be that natural temperament may incline one in one direction or the other (e.g., people inclined towards tradition and authority may be inclined to accept religion without serious questioning) but for some individuals the deciding difference will be a rational consideration of the facts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This sounds to me like saying some are inclined to objective truth and others are not. Is this a fair interpretation?

 

[quatona]

For the purposes of simplicity I'd like to temporarily limit our conversation to the western world and compare Christian belief to secular belief. Though you do raise another good issue within the conversation. Can we focus on the former for a while before we introduce the complications of the latter?

In my opinion, this issue is crucial to your question. In the former post, you contrasted people inclined towards faith to people who are not inclined to faith. The fact that even the people who are inclined to faith in the deity of their preference are about as little inclined towards other deities as people who are generally not inclined to faith are renders this distinction doubtful.
The skepticism of believers when it comes to deities other than that of their preference is remarkable.

 

[seeking Christ]

I call Poe.

No, this is actually taught as Calvinism, which is the faith icon of the OP. This is their definition of predestination, and the elect. Both are Biblical terms, but obviously I understand their meaning to be quite different.

 

[quatona]

From a non-theistic perspective I think that this is the best explanation. It is curious, though. If one is inclined toward faith and the other inclined away from faith can we really trust our brains to be objective truth producing organs? It's not as if one is inclined toward truth and the other is inclined toward non-truth. Am I right?

It´s more like some people forget about the skepticism they have in common with everyone else at certain points. It´s not like they aren´t inclined towards truth, it´s more like in certain cases they forget about the epistemological approach they usually and naturally accept, defend and advocate.
Its interesting how the arguments of many believers in deity X become pretty similar to the arguments of an atheists when it´s about deity Y.

 

[quatona]

No, this is actually taught as Calvinism, which is the faith icon of the OP. This is their definition of predestination, and the elect. Both are Biblical terms, but obviously I understand their meaning to be quite different.

Well, that´s the very point of Poe´s Law: the real thing and the parody are indistinguishable.

 

[seeking Christ]

Oh I remember Alan well, but in this case the real thing is distinguishable, easily so. that's all I'm pointing out. Anyway the OP is a question I have myself, and Calvinism's greatest strength is addressing the issue, and others that arise from it. So I hope to maybe gain some insight from atheists in this thread ...

 

[Eudaimonist]

This sounds to me like saying some are inclined to objective truth and others are not. Is this a fair interpretation?

I'm not sure what you mean by "inclined to objective truth". It's more that some people are inclined to question and ponder more than others. I suppose one could say that they are more inclined to seek objective truth instead of being satisfied with the ideas with which they were raised.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

No, it's more that some people are inclined to question and ponder more than others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So how do you account for strong theists who are inclined to question and ponder?

 

[madaz]

So how do you account for strong theists who are inclined to question and ponder?

Questioning and pondering the existence of a deity is not a sign of strong theism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So how do you account for strong theists who are inclined to question and ponder?

I'm not certain why I should have to account for such people. I don't think that people who question and ponder necessarily agree with each other, and they don't necessarily have the truth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "inclined to objective truth". It's more that some people are inclined to question and ponder more than others. I suppose one could say that they are more inclined to seek objective truth instead of being satisfied with the ideas with which they were raised.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So how do you account for strong theists who are inclined to question and ponder?

I'm not certain why I should have to account for such people. I don't think that people who question and ponder necessarily agree with each other, and they don't necessarily have the truth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And yet people inclined to question and ponder still wind up as strong theists. Hmmm

 

[quatona]

Oh I remember Alan well, but in this case the real thing is distinguishable, easily so. that's all I'm pointing out. Anyway the OP is a question I have myself, and Calvinism's greatest strength is addressing the issue, and others that arise from it. So I hope to maybe gain some insight from atheists in this thread ...

So what kind of insight are you hoping to get from me? An explanation why Calvinist believe that they of all are the elect?
Imo, "I am special therefore I am right" has never counted as "addressing" any issue.

 

[quatona]

I'm not certain why I should have to account for such people. I don't think that people who question and ponder necessarily agree with each other, and they don't necessarily have the truth.

And, if I may add: people who claim to be in hold of the truth are not the ones who question and ponder.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And yet people inclined to question and ponder still wind up as strong theists. Hmmm

Perhaps some do. I don't know any personally myself, so I'm just taking your word for it at the moment.

And many people who question and ponder become atheists. Hmmm...?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

So what kind of insight are you hoping to get from me? An explanation why Calvinist believe that they of all are the elect?

Obviously not that

Atheists here, including yourself, have your own reasons for not believing, and some may draw your own conclusions why others do believe. Seeing how others tick on such things is interesting, and an opportunity to gain perspective that is rare.

 

[seeking Christ]

Questioning and pondering the existence of a deity is not a sign of strong theism.

And, if I may add: people who claim to be in hold of the truth are not the ones who question and ponder.

Both these statements betray an underlying prejudice. It is quite possible for people inclined to question and ponder (see: skeptics) to arrive at faith.

 

[quatona]

Both these statements betray an underlying prejudice. It is quite possible for people inclined to question and ponder (see: skeptics) to arrive at faith.

Which means they have stopped questioning and pondering.

 

[madaz]

And many people who question and ponder become atheists. Hmmm...?

Amen!