What makes us believe?

[theleftone]

I have often stated my acceptance of the Christian is based on a complex array of variable which even I don't fully understand. These include social, emotional, experiential, intellectual, and so other factors. It would be nice to deduce the reasons to one or two, but the truth is life doesn't work this way. Granted, we need not include all these factors in our reasons for each belief.

Question for debate:
What makes us believe? Why do we accept things as true? How can we determine which things have influenced us to believe?

The goal I envision is that we can work towards a set of 'principles' which are used by humans in determining (consciously or not) their beliefs. If we can manage this, it would be great to devise some methodology which could be applied to each case to where a person could self-determine what factors have played into their belief formation. (Yes, it's a grand goal.)

[theleftone]

After posting, I thought maybe a better forum for this might be the philosophy forum.

[Confused]

Moved per your request.

[QED]

tselem, I wonder if you've seen Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the spell"? As that wiki article states it "attempts a scientific analysis of the origins of religion and of its pros and cons. Dennett implies that the spell he hopes to break is not religious belief itself, but the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry." The material covering the topic of "memes" seems most pertinent to your question.

We know that there can be many routes to firm belief that may never originate from anything stronger than a hunch -- and if we accept that certain ideas can be infectious (an artefact of our cognitive plumbing) then such beliefs may become extremely widespread.

To me the staying-power of Catholicism spread throughout the Spanish empire in the 15th and 16th centuries has all the appearance of a memetically engineered crop. Would we seriously entertain the notion that, had history been slightly different, Islam would not also have taken such a firm grip? This suggests that we might be witnessing belief in belief for its own sakes.

[Confused]

I have often stated my acceptance of the Christian is based on a complex array of variable which even I don't fully understand. These include social, emotional, experiential, intellectual, and so other factors. It would be nice to deduce the reasons to one or two, but the truth is life doesn't work this way. Granted, we need not include all these factors in our reasons for each belief.

Question for debate:
What makes us believe? Why do we accept things as true? How can we determine which things have influenced us to believe?

The goal I envision is that we can work towards a set of 'principles' which are used by humans in determining (consciously or not) their beliefs. If we can manage this, it would be great to devise some methodology which could be applied to each case to where a person could self-determine what factors have played into their belief formation. (Yes, it's a grand goal.)

Freud would argue that as a child, we see our dad as infallible. This gives us a sense of security. As we age, we start to see the weaknesses our father has. This leads to insecurity and fear of such a chaotic world. As a response, we ascribe to God as a "Father" greater than life who can keep us safe and give us order in an otherwise chaotic life.

Now, for those raised without a father, one could probably replace it with their "Imaginary Friend". Freud wasn't always on his best game. (Humor intended!!!)