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?

[McCulloch]

We all were created as free will beings.

I am not sure that this has been entirely established. However, sufficient for the day is that we exist with apparent free will.

You get to choose whether or not you want God to be a part of your life or not. You, obviously have chosen "not".

No. I cannot choose to believe that God exists any more than I can choose to believe that the sky is pink. We all believe what we believe for specific reasons. Some of us like to think that our beliefs are rational and based on logic and evidence. And some of our beliefs are really based on logic and evidence. But, we are an emotional and irrational species. We each hold beliefs for emotional subjective reasons. But whatever the reason, we believe what we believe for reasons. You cannot just say to yourself, "I am going to start believing in a God today" without a compelling (at least in your own estimation) reason. Belief is not a choice.

So, why ridicule those who on a daily, moment to moment basis, have a personal relationship with God?

It is a matter of perspective. What you see as a personal relationship with God, we see as a grown-up version of the imaginary friend. I suppose that if it helps you cope with life, that's fine, have your imaginary friend. But so many Christians want to introduce the rest of us to their friend. They want us to allow their friend to establish our rules and guide our lives. This is the point where we have to stand up and insist on objective evidence.
Now, Bro Dave, I know that this does not apply to you. You have not been the kind of theist who intolerantly insists that the path you have found is the one and only path for ever for everyone. I appreciate that in you. But, I suspect that you are quite aware of the type of religionist that I have referred to.

Is it a fear thing?

Yes it is. Is there some reason why we should not fear fundamentalist's political power?
But on a deeper level, don't we all fear death? Sure we do. We can even explain that fear in terms of evolution. What if we are wrong? We skeptical unbelievers, unlike religious dogmatics, are always aware that we might be wrong on any point. If there really is a reason to believe that in some kind of post-mortem existence there is eternal reward or eternal torment, we naturally would prefer to be on the side of eternal reward. But we are simply not convinced by the evidence so far provided.

[harvey1]

I cannot choose to believe that God exists any more than I can choose to believe that the sky is pink. We all believe what we believe for specific reasons. Some of us like to think that our beliefs are rational and based on logic and evidence. And some of our beliefs are really based on logic and evidence.

I don't understand this comment. You said that you were once a Christian, but now you are an atheist. However, if you had no free choice in but becoming an atheist, then that's like saying the devil got inside of you and that's why you are an atheist. I don't think that's what you are suggesting, and therefore it seems like you are saying that you really freely choose to be an atheist. Right?

[McCulloch]

I cannot choose to believe that God exists any more than I can choose to believe that the sky is pink. We all believe what we believe for specific reasons.

I don't understand this comment. You said that you were once a Christian, but now you are an atheist. However, if you had no free choice in but becoming an atheist, then that's like saying the devil got inside of you and that's why you are an atheist. I don't think that's what you are suggesting, and therefore it seems like you are saying that you really freely choose to be an atheist. Right?

I did not, in fact, choose to be an atheist. Right.
I stopped believing that there was a God, not because I decided that I would no longer believe in God, but because I could no longer believe that there was a God based on my own understanding of the available evidence. Likewise, belief is not a choice. You cannot choose to be convinced by the evidence against belief any more than I can choose to be convinced by the evidence for belief. You either believe that something is true or you don't. That is a false dichotomy; you can also believe that something is possibly true, probably true, possibly false or probably false in various degrees.

There are choices to be made. Let's leave aside the issue of whether they are entirely free. You can agree that from our own perspective, our decisions appear to be free. Someone can choose to ignore evidence. Another can choose to seek evidence. The evidence found (or ignored) will probably effect what we believe. There are choices to be made based on our beliefs. Someone can believe that there is a God but choose not to repent or acknowledge faith.

No, I do not believe that the devil got inside me and made me decide to reject God. Nor do I believe anymore that God got inside me and gave me faith. I simply looked at the evidence available to me. At one time that evidence convinced me that there was a God. Further testing of that evidence convinced an older me that there was not.

[harvey1]

I did not, in fact, choose to be an atheist.... I could no longer believe that there was a God based on my own understanding of the available evidence. Likewise, belief is not a choice. You cannot choose to be convinced by the evidence against belief any more than I can choose to be convinced by the evidence for belief. You either believe that something is true or you don't... There are choices to be made based on our beliefs. Someone can believe that there is a God but choose not to repent or acknowledge faith.

Well, didn't you choose to be a Christian? If you are not choosing to form a belief, then what causes you to believe something unless it is you that makes the choice to be rational? Also, I might add, you treat evidence and reasoning as if it were context-independent of what you already believe, but we know that evidence and reasoning are based on context-dependent beliefs.

[McCulloch]

Well, didn't you choose to be a Christian?

Yes. I chose to become a Christian after I realized that I believed in God. Does not even the apostle James state the there is more to having faith than mere belief?

If you are not choosing to form a belief, then what causes you to believe something unless it is you that makes the choice to be rational?

There are many and complex reasons why a person believes something. I do not believe that any of them are matters of a person's choice. No one that I know makes the choice to be irrational. Our beliefs, whether objectively rational or irrational are all based on our ability to assess and to access evidence. If either is impared, as it is to varying degrees for all humans, then our beliefs will become less likely to be true.

Also, I might add, you treat evidence and reasoning as if it were context-independent of what you already believe, but we know that evidence and reasoning are based on context-dependent beliefs.

That is the ideal of science, but I have to agree with you that sometimes we believe what we believe for reasons other than context independent evidence and reasoning. What I already believe to be true definately affects what I might accept to be true. But that is just another link in the chain of causes of my belief.
What I do not mean to say is that I have a kind of defeatist viewpoint with regard to belief. My beliefs have changed. So have yours, unless you are brain dead. I can choose to investigate and test my beliefs. If that investigation uncovers evidence that convinces me that my beliefs are in error, then my beliefs will change.

[harvey1]

Yes. I chose to become a Christian after I realized that I believed in God.

So, if it was a choice, then why is your not-believing, in this case, not a choice?

There are many and complex reasons why a person believes something. I do not believe that any of them are matters of a person's choice. No one that I know makes the choice to be irrational. Our beliefs, whether objectively rational or irrational are all based on our ability to assess and to access evidence. If either is impared, as it is to varying degrees for all humans, then our beliefs will become less likely to be true.

Sure, but why is it not an option to choose to believe in God? This seems to suggest a view similar to the Gospel of Matthew records that a demon entered Judas and therefore betrayed Jesus. The difference though is that you seem to be saying that Judas necessarily had to betray Jesus, which I don't agree with.

We choose to have a worldview, and with that worldview comes the methods by which we use to judge and evaluate evidence. If the worldview is no longer pleasing to us--pragmatically speaking, then we often choose another because it's not working for us.

but I have to agree with you that sometimes we believe what we believe for reasons other than context independent evidence and reasoning. What I already believe to be true definately affects what I might accept to be true. But that is just another link in the chain of causes of my belief.

Unfortunately the people who believe that they are looking at evidence as an objective observer are the most difficult to convince of anything. You might see some of the long posts on this site as evidence of that.

What I do not mean to say is that I have a kind of defeatist viewpoint with regard to belief. My beliefs have changed. So have yours, unless you are brain dead. I can choose to investigate and test my beliefs. If that investigation uncovers evidence that convinces me that my beliefs are in error, then my beliefs will change.

However, I don't feel chained down to my beliefs. I believe what I believe because--pragmatically speaking--these beliefs make me the happiest and most content. That's not to say that I accept irrational beliefs, though. I would have to be consistent in whatever beliefs I do have, and if I begin to think irrationally then somewhere along the lines I would suffer from my irrationality. That suffering would entice me to adopt new paradigms to end the suffering.

So, I can understand if someone choose to not be a Christian because they were suffering (e.g., they were members of a strict sect, etc.), but I don't understand why someone would knowingly choose a set of beliefs which are downright depressing (namely atheism). That doesn't make any sense to me. It's like believing that nuclear war will happen to our kids and that they will die a miserable death in a post-nuclear nightmare. Sure, it's a conceivable reality, but why intentionally believe such negative views if there is other viable choices? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Curious]

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?

The reason so many people believe in God is because God is, in fact, real. Of course, you now believe me to be a complete lunatic with no grasp of the real world.
You cite ignorance as a reason to believe, while I see ignorance as a reason not to believe.
First and foremost, let me make it clear, God is not a crutch for many people. God, for some, is the product of intense scrutiny. God is the director of what could be and what is. God is the will and the way. This, I believe, is what Harvey believes. Harvey does not believe this for no good reason but has come to this conclusion from strenuous examination of the relevant information. To believe that such a belief is equivalent to belief in the tooth fairy is ridiculous.
Please try not to automatically assume that all theists are complete idiots otherwise you alienate yourself from us and us from you. We might be idiots but please don't assume this as you are far less likely to persuade us that we are in error. On the other hand, if you believe that we are not all idiots, you might be receptive to our arguments (if they are not too insane) and take us seriously.

[McCulloch]

Yes. I chose to become a Christian after I realized that I believed in God.

So, if it was a choice, then why is your not-believing, in this case, not a choice?

You are missing the point. I was convinced by my understanding of the evidence at the time. So I believed in God. No choice. Then I decided (choice) to become a Christian based on that belief.

There are many and complex reasons why a person believes something. I do not believe that any of them are matters of a person's choice. No one that I know makes the choice to be irrational. Our beliefs, whether objectively rational or irrational are all based on our ability to assess and to access evidence. If either is impared, as it is to varying degrees for all humans, then our beliefs will become less likely to be true.

Sure, but why is it not an option to choose to believe in God? This seems to suggest a view similar to the Gospel of Matthew records that a demon entered Judas and therefore betrayed Jesus. The difference though is that you seem to be saying that Judas necessarily had to betray Jesus, which I don't agree with.

No, not at all. We choose what we do. We do not choose what we believe.

We choose to have a worldview, and with that worldview comes the methods by which we use to judge and evaluate evidence. If the worldview is no longer pleasing to us--pragmatically speaking, then we often choose another because it's not working for us.

That is nice for you that you can categorize your knowledge into those beliefs which are part of your worldview and those bits which are not. I do not think that we choose that way. We build our worldview based on the accumulation of beliefs about the world.

but I have to agree with you that sometimes we believe what we believe for reasons other than context independent evidence and reasoning. What I already believe to be true definately affects what I might accept to be true. But that is just another link in the chain of causes of my belief.

Unfortunately the people who believe that they are looking at evidence as an objective observer are the most difficult to convince of anything. You might see some of the long posts on this site as evidence of that.

The fact that we can never reach the ideal of being an objective observer should not stop us from trying to become more objective. However, objective or not, we base our beliefs on our assessment of whatever evidence we have. We may not objectively analyse that evidence, but we still believe based only on evidence.

What I do not mean to say is that I have a kind of defeatist viewpoint with regard to belief. My beliefs have changed. So have yours, unless you are brain dead. I can choose to investigate and test my beliefs. If that investigation uncovers evidence that convinces me that my beliefs are in error, then my beliefs will change.

However, I don't feel chained down to my beliefs. I believe what I believe because--pragmatically speaking--these beliefs make me the happiest and most content.

I beg to differ. You believe what you believe because you are convinced that those beliefs are most probably correct.

That's not to say that I accept irrational beliefs, though. I would have to be consistent in whatever beliefs I do have, and if I begin to think irrationally then somewhere along the lines I would suffer from my irrationality. That suffering would entice me to adopt new paradigms to end the suffering.

So, I can understand if someone choose to not be a Christian because they were suffering (e.g., they were members of a strict sect, etc.), but I don't understand why someone would knowingly choose a set of beliefs which are downright depressing (namely atheism).

And I don't understand why someone would knowingly choose a set of beliefs which they are not convinced are true but make them happy anyway.

That doesn't make any sense to me. It's like believing that nuclear war will happen to our kids and that they will die a miserable death in a post-nuclear nightmare. Sure, it's a conceivable reality, but why intentionally believe such negative views if there is other viable choices? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Do you think that it is better to have your head in the sand?

[QED]

The reason so many people believe in God is because God is, in fact, real.

What evidence is there that makes this a fact? Good to see you joining the debate BTW

[harvey1]

You are missing the point. I was convinced by my understanding of the evidence at the time. So I believed in God. No choice. Then I decided (choice) to become a Christian based on that belief.

So, you decided to be a Christian but you didn't also decide to be a theist? Did you decide to be an atheist like you decided to be a Christian?

No, not at all. We choose what we do. We do not choose what we believe.

If our beliefs all lack free will, then how do our actions introduce free will? It would seem to me to be the opposite. We decide what we believe and our actions are based on what we choose to believe. For example, if I choose to read a novel because I believe that this activity will be fun, then I have freely chosen a particular belief (i.e., an intension of what I wish to do) which I then do because I now have this belief that this would be the best use of my time and something that I wish to do. If I didn't choose this belief, then I wouldn't follow through on this action since I lack this belief.

We choose to have a worldview, and with that worldview comes the methods by which we use to judge and evaluate evidence. If the worldview is no longer pleasing to us--pragmatically speaking, then we often choose another because it's not working for us.

That is nice for you that you can categorize your knowledge into those beliefs which are part of your worldview and those bits which are not. I do not think that we choose that way. We build our worldview based on the accumulation of beliefs about the world.

Sure, our worldview is context-dependent on what we already believe, but our beliefs are always based (ultimately) on pragmatism. For example, if in the 15th and 16th century it was found that experimentation produced useless predictive results as to how nature reacts in certain situations, then surely modern science would never have been pursued. Now, as we build more and more successful beliefs, we begin to look at the beliefs themselves as "true," but that's only because we've had so much success with those beliefs that we're sure that they are objectively right. So, we feel comfortable building on those beliefs. However, if things aren't going well overall, then this creates dissatisfaction with a paradigm (a whole collection of related beliefs), and we begin to become open to new paradigms.

However, objective or not, we base our beliefs on our assessment of whatever evidence we have. We may not objectively analyse that evidence, but we still believe based only on evidence.

I disagree with that. Of course we base our views on evidence, but since evidence is based on our worldview, we tend to underestimate evidence that is contrary to that worldview and we can also overestimate evidence that is in conformance to that worldview. It's only when our worldviews contradict each other than we see the necessity to change our perspective since a more dear worldview (e.g., rationality) might be jeopardized as a result. Hence, we don't believe based only on evidence, but on a conglomeration of factors which are based significantly on our worldview. It's the reason why atheists don't instantly convert to agnosticism or theism when they hear about huge coincidences in the natural constants that seem to require life. This evidence contradicts their worldview, and that worldview is more dear to them than the evidence, so this requires that they interpret this evidence in a manner that is more conducive to their way of seeing the world (hence, the big push by these folks toward secular anthropic principle reasoning).

You believe what you believe because you are convinced that those beliefs are most probably correct.

Of course I think they are correct, but that's because my worldview has an interpretation where these beliefs could only appear to be correct. That doesn't stop me from choosing my worldview based on pragmatic standards.

And I don't understand why someone would knowingly choose a set of beliefs which they are not convinced are true but make them happy anyway.

That's not what I said. Worldviews are selected based on what is seen as successful reasoning. So, for example, we go to the doctor if we're sick or hurt because we have a worldview that medical science is much more successful at curing us or allowing us to heal than any other approach. If we possessed a worldview that other practices were much more successful (e.g., laying on of hands by a minister), then surely none of us would bother with medical doctors. That doesn't mean that doctors always make us better, I'm sure there's many instances where someone would have been better off had they not gone to the doctor and just stayed home (or had someone lay hands on them). However, the success of medical science has been so successful that this view is no longer tenable. This was not always true. I heard that Descartes didn't want medical doctors to bleed him because he didn't trust the success of that method, and Descartes was correct--though he died anyway.

Do you think that it is better to have your head in the sand?

Not at all. We have many worldviews which we utilize to interpret evidence, and therefore as a collection we are not having our head in the sand in the least.

My take on it is that most people have little realization on how much of their views ultimately derive from pragmatic considerations. Because they are out of touch with this foundation of knowledge, they think that anyone who mentions a pragmatic basis as somehow constructing truth to make them happy. But, this is incorrect. Pragmatists, such as myself, are not constructing truth we are just being realistic as to where knowledge originates and are content to look for a pragmatic basis for all knowledge.