Whats the reason for this belief?

[Scrotum]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify. But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in gods?

Instead of talking about gods specifically , i would like to use the Tooth Fairy as a substitute, as there is no difference, and shows the ridicule of the whole thing.

-
Both John/Harvey & Otsent believe in the Tooth Fairy. Otsent believes in a specific Tooth Fairy, together with John, whom is more of a fundamentalist, Whiles Harvey is more close to a Different Tooth Fairy.

None of these people have any proof or logical based evidence for the existence of their Tooth Fairy. None at all. They simply state he or she exist, and thats the end of story.
-

Why?
Personally, i always presumed the contemporary belief of a Tooth Fairy to be because of fear. Death is a scary thought for most people (remember, the general population is ignorant, and ignorance brings fear), and also the fact that you would be forced to take responsobility for your life,which the existence of the Tooth Fairy removes.


Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

[harvey1]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify. But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in [God]?

I'm assuming you are asking why people believe God exists and not why many people are polytheists.

To answer your question, I think the primary reason is that people encounter randomness in a variety of ways, and they have a good instinctive realization that randomness leads to basically nothing unless its just adding variety to what is already there. Since everything has a cause, I suppose most educated people realize that this must terminate with the existence of God.

Instead of talking about gods specifically , i would like to use the Tooth Fairy as a substitute, as there is no difference, and shows the ridicule of the whole thing.

In a universe that is ultimately a result of randomness, I would think that there would be a higher possibility of the Tooth Fairy than under a theist belief system which says that the universe is ultimately rationally guided by a rational God. As a clarification, I don't know of anything that prevents the evolution of a tooth fairy (a creature that sneeks into bedrooms and takes missing teeth). Certainly it is possible in some universe (or even some planet in our universe) out there where such a creature evolved. So, I would think that atheists would be more likely to believe in tooth fairies than theists.

None of these people have any proof or logical based evidence for the existence of their Tooth Fairy. None at all. They simply state he or she exist, and thats the end of story.

No, that's not correct at all. The coincidences in the physical constants offer great evidence that God exists. The singularity theorems developed by Borde, Vilenkin, Penrose, and Hawking offer great evidence that God exists. Okay, okay, there's some people out there who are intent on ignoring that evidence, but why should their desire to not want to believe in God hold the rest of humanity back? I honestly can't think of a reason.

Personally, i always presumed the contemporary belief of a Tooth Fairy to be because of fear. Death is a scary thought for most people (remember, the general population is ignorant, and ignorance brings fear), and also the fact that you would be forced to take responsobility for your life,which the existence of the Tooth Fairy removes.

I've often wondered why someone would deny singularity theorems and coincidences in the physical constants as obviously misguided evidence when they so strongly appear to be obviously correct interpretations of the evidence. I too also look for a psychological reason. What causes atheism if it is not the evidence? Good question. I think it really depends on the person. For some it might be just misguided interpretations that they have (e.g., they don't know about the coincidences in the physical constants, or they misguidingly think that it is irrelevant, etc.). Or, and I think we have to seriously look into this, is the Madalyn Murray O'Hair phenomena where the atheist is angry about something in their life, and that anger shows in the way they interact with others. They need to feel intellectually superior over others perhaps, and so we see them engaged in constant putdowns of others (e.g., "most of humanity is stupid," etc.). Psychologically I've always heard that this is a way of diverting the pain that they themselves experience. So, perhaps some of these atheists have a low self-esteem. I wish more studies were done on atheists to find the psychological basis of it, but unfortunately these studies are not done.

[HughDP]

Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

I'm not sure ignorance applies. Many god-believers are as equally versed in science, culture and humanity as atheists. Many have chosen to believe despite - or even because of - their extensive understanding of these things.

Of course there will be ignorant 'believers', but there will also be ignorant atheists.

There are many reasons why people choose to believe in a god:

- they simply believe that evidence in their own experience is proof enough of god's existence,
- they believe gaps in science are best explained by god,
- they fear death and the idea of simply not existing,
- they fear the wrath their religion proclaims will befall them if they don't believe,
- they have been brought up to believe or heavily influenced to believe by others,
- they wish to 'belong',
- they look to god as an explanation for the unexplained,
- they see an order in the universe which they feel science cannot explain,
- they find an attraction in the 'logical' explanations that allegedly prove god (Aquinas, etc),
- they have had a specific life event that lead them to god,
- they are hedging their bets.

Or any combination thereof and a bunch of other reasons I've probably missed.

I use god with a small 'g' here to describe any entity that may realistically described as a god in compliance with your tooth-fairy analogy. The reasons for belief in the Abrahamic God are, I think, altogether more complex.

[OccamsRazor]

I don't know of anything that prevents the evolution of a tooth fairy (a creature that sneeks into bedrooms and takes missing teeth).

I know of a reason. The reason is that such actions are a drain on the creature's resources and does not increase the likelihood of continuation of its species.

No, that's not correct at all. The coincidences in the physical constants offer great evidence that God exists. The singularity theorems developed by Borde, Vilenkin, Penrose, and Hawking offer great evidence that God exists. Okay, okay, there's some people out there who are intent on ignoring that evidence, but why should their desire to not want to believe in God hold the rest of humanity back? I honestly can't think of a reason.

Harvey I must say that on these comments I think you are simply making leaps of faith that others are not prepared to make. I think that many theists wish to find the creator and any apparent coincidental evidence just bolsters this pre-concieved opinion. Personally I do not believe that people are intent on ignoring the evidence I personally take an opinion of ignorance until I can see some evidence as to how such apparent coincidences are created (be this a divine hand or physical inevitibility). Furthermore, people such as Penrose and Hawking, as well as Susskind, Linde, Witten, Schwarz...etc. have also given theories which could explain how such "coincidences" are actually emergent necessities.

[harvey1]

I don't know of anything that prevents the evolution of a tooth fairy (a creature that sneeks into bedrooms and takes missing teeth).

I know of a reason. The reason is that such actions are a drain on the creature's resources and does not increase the likelihood of continuation of its species.

What if it evolved in a symbiotic environment with primates, and that a number of primates lost teeth on a daily basis which provided valuable tooth enamel for the hive? As the number of primates decreased, the creature evolved the cunning trait of stealing the teeth at night of small children? Are you saying this is logically impossible if there are an infinite number of universes?

Harvey I must say that on these comments I think you are simply making leaps of faith that others are not prepared to make. I think that many theists wish to find the creator and any apparent coincidental evidence just bolsters this pre-concieved opinion.

If that were so, I doubt dogmatic atheists would feel the need to try and explain those coincidences by appealing to an infinite number of universes.

Personally I do not believe that people are intent on ignoring the evidence I personally take an opinion of ignorance until I can see some evidence as to how such apparent coincidences are created (be this a divine hand or physical inevitibility). Furthermore, people such as Penrose and Hawking, as well as Susskind, Linde, Witten, Schwarz...etc. have also given theories which could explain how such "coincidences" are actually emergent necessities.

The "cure" in those cases seems far worse than the disease.

[QED]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify.

Stupidity is subjective. This opening remark is little more than flame bait and I'm glad to see that everyone's been sensible enough not to take it.

But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in gods?

I think you'll find that as a necessary consequence of our not being able to step outside our universe and see it in any greater context, there remains an ambiguity that, so far, nobody has been able to resolve.

Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

Yes, in addition to the reasons you mention and many more, I think there is a philosophical reason that cannot be put down so easily. Harvey often asks why is there something rather than nothing at all? The observations we make abbout the marvelous way the universe seems to have been made specially for us, while being highly compelling evidence for an act of deliberate creation for some, is unfortunatley not at all sound reason for this inferrence. We might just as easily marvel at the ratio of gasses in the Earths atmosphere. It is infinitely more probable that we adapted to this particular ratio through evolution than it is for the ratio to have been carefully attuned to us.

Thus it can be seen how, when we require the support of a particular environment to allow us to make observations, observations about that environment will necessarily have the properties we see. This means that we cannot make inferences about there being a deliberate act of creation just because everything looks so improbably "just right". In particular, evolution serves as a powerful example of how improbable circumstances can come about. Certainly no one with any sense would imagine that a highly complex

[theleftone]

Where art thou oh civility?

[OccamsRazor]

What if it evolved in a symbiotic environment with primates, and that a number of primates lost teeth on a daily basis which provided valuable tooth enamel for the hive? As the number of primates decreased, the creature evolved the cunning trait of stealing the teeth at night of small children? Are you saying this is logically impossible if there are an infinite number of universes?

Where do they get the money to put under the pillow? Why would they steal/create coinage to replace the tooth?
I am not necessarily saying that it is logically impossible. I am merely stating a possible flaw in using evolution to prove the existence of the tooth fairy.

If that were so, I doubt dogmatic atheists would feel the need to try and explain those coincidences by appealing to an infinite number of universes.

I think that the difference here is that the infinite universes conjecture has been indicated by many theories which are based on observable phenomena.

Ultimately my biggest problem with Panentheism is that it seems to have evolved by lopping chunks from defined theologies each time one of the tenets has been proven false. You may start with a Christianity that says "God created all existence in 4004 BC and that the Earth was the centre of the Universe". This is slowly hacked away by scientific discovery until you end up with "God is a higher being that created the laws of nature and set the universe in motion 13.7 billion years ago". Personally I think that some of this discovery should cause us to drop the notion of God until we can understand how the physical laws and constants came to be. If we find that we must theorise a higher power to construct a theory of everything then so be it, until that point I see no reason to add one.

[harvey1]

Where do they get the money to put under the pillow?

Well, in the world where fairies evolved, the fairies and primates had a symbiotic relation of exchanging honey-like sweets for loose teeth that fell off. Over time, the primates began to prefer food from other sources than insects, but a few fairies in the southern hemisphere had gold particulates in the honey which the primates used for cosmetics and attracting mates. Those fairies won out. Gradually species of fairies that produced more gold particulates had more babies, and those fairies built hives into gold veins that the primates had no means to access. Over time the primates started to evolve intelligence and started to trade the gold particulates (i.e., fairy dust) with other communities, and fairies also began to evolve intelligence. Unfortunately, some of portion of hominids over many eons began to horde the fairy dust, and this decreased the food supply of enamel since the hominids began to loose interest in acquiring the fairy dust since it attracted looters, etc.. Fairies in the northern hemisphere had evolved the means of leaving the fairy dust at night on the bed, and the symbiotic relation eventually evolved to where the hominids left the tooth under their pillow and the fairies left their fairy dust (now evolved into gold round and smooth nuggets). The hominids evolved and used these nuggets in their commerce and to this day on this far and away possible atheist universe, these fairies still leave their "coins" in exchange for a child's tooth.

If that were so, I doubt dogmatic atheists would feel the need to try and explain those coincidences by appealing to an infinite number of universes.

I think that the difference here is that the infinite universes conjecture has been indicated by many theories which are based on observable phenomena.

Not contingent universes, these are all based on there being laws which in some way bring about a multiverse state space. There's never been a question that pantheism can explain our universe and or its constants.

Personally I think that some of this discovery should cause us to drop the notion of God until we can understand how the physical laws and constants came to be. If we find that we must theorise a higher power to construct a theory of everything then so be it, until that point I see no reason to add one.

Personally I think that these discoveries should cause us to drop the notion of atheism until we can understand how contingency could have any realistic chance to bring about the world that we see. I think we should reject what is not sensible, and I don't think a contingent multiverse is sensible.

[QED]

Personally I think that these discoveries should cause us to drop the notion of atheism until we can understand how contingency could have any realistic chance to bring about the world that we see. I think we should reject what is not sensible, and I don't think a contingent multiverse is sensible.

I can't help thinking that this is fundamentally an irrational way to conduct oneself. It boils down to the teleological argument; if we venture out into the world and see some striking feature is it rational to assume it to be the deliberate work of some sentient agency? I would argue that it should always assumed to be the product of natural processes, and void of purpose until such time as it can be positively identified as the product of a deliberate and purposeful construction. Is this not the lesson we should have learned from the history of our investigations in what are now known to be natural phenomena?

In effect we short-circuit all this effort by appealing to a teleological origin for the entire universe and undoing all the work in explaining things such as how lightning is not the weapon of some angry God. I find that too much accept. There are simply too many phenomena which have appealing interpretations along these lines for me to ignore the powerful lure towards anthropomorphism as an unwarranted bias.