Why Are Things Believed ?

@kellyjay said
I'm not missing the point; we can believe in anything, true or not, and we can have
many reasons that work for us that do not work for others. Some can come to
faith over a single sentence, one act, others a lifetime of evidence and experiences.

With the supernatural or other things we believe, the only thing that matters is if
it's true or not! What we put our faith ...[text shortened]... coming to faith about things, there is also
avoiding faith about things we may not want to be true.

Truth is not causative of belief. The proof of that is that people believe all manner of falsehoods and even resist the truth when it is demonstrated to them with mountains of compellingly consistent evidence and sound arguments. So stop preaching about “truth is the only thing that matters.” Clearly it isn’t what matters.

We’re discussing here the psychological factors involved in forming beliefs, not whether the belief resulting from this process happens to be true, especially the sort of beliefs about which there is genuine doubt about what would constitute evidence for them. We’re not discussing beliefs like how many states there are in the USA or what the temp is in someone’s back yard; there is no doubt what would constitute evidence for those sorts of beliefs. There is genuine and well-founded doubt about what would constitute evidence for something which allegedly happened before and outside the universe, some supernatural causality.

How is it that a geologist looks at a fossil and believes it is hundreds of millions of years old, whereas a YEC looks at the same fossil and believes it is only about 6,000 years old? How do such radically incompatible beliefs form in two different minds? The fossil itself is the truth, but it is mute, so you cannot continue to claim that the truth is the only thing that matters when two people look at the same truth and come to incompatible beliefs about it. Clearly there are other factors than truth involved in belief formation. It is too easy to summarily dismiss the YEC position as stupid. There must be some other explanation for his belief.

Do you wish to contribute by THINKING about how beliefs are formed?

@moonbus said
Truth is not causative of belief. The proof of that is that people believe all manner of falsehoods and even resist the truth when it is demonstrated to them with mountains of compellingly consistent evidence and sound arguments. So stop preaching about “truth is the only thing that matters.” Clearly it isn’t what matters.

We’re discussing here the psychological factors i ...[text shortened]... explanation for his belief.

Do you wish to contribute by THINKING about how beliefs are formed?

👍🏻

@kellyjay said
Why don't you stay on topic instead of making me the topic? The why we believe is
the topic, .

Why aren't you talking about the topic then?

@moonbus said
Truth is not causative of belief. The proof of that is that people believe all manner of falsehoods and even resist the truth when it is demonstrated to them with mountains of compellingly consistent evidence and sound arguments. So stop preaching about “truth is the only thing that matters.” Clearly it isn’t what matters.

We’re discussing here the psychological factors i ...[text shortened]... explanation for his belief.

Do you wish to contribute by THINKING about how beliefs are formed?

You believe we should not look into what we think is true to form our opinions? Should we accept contradictions that don’t agree with each other just to get along? If we are not attempting to figure out what is true what matters then, something that makes me happy, or something that doesn’t make me stand apart from the crowd to get along?

@kellyjay said
You believe we should not look into what we think is true to form our opinions? Should we accept contradictions that don’t agree with each other just to get along? If we are not attempting to figure out what is true what matters then, something that makes me happy, or something that doesn’t make me stand apart from the crowd to get along?

You're simply running away from this topic, aren't you?

@kellyjay said
You believe we should not look into what we think is true to form our opinions? Should we accept contradictions that don’t agree with each other just to get along? If we are not attempting to figure out what is true what matters then, something that makes me happy, or something that doesn’t make me stand apart from the crowd to get along?

You really don’t get it. This isn't about "should."

All you've said so far is that whatever people believe, they believe to be true. DUH! That's so bloody obvious, it shouldn't have to be said. But that's not what this thread is about.

People do not go around beating the bushes looking for truths to believe. It's not like this: "O look! It says here in Encyclopedia Britannica that Ludwig Wittgenstein died in Cambridge in 1951. By golly, that's a truth! I think I'll start believing that right now."

This thread is about the operative factors involved in acquiring beliefs, and they are the same regardless whether the resulting beliefs turn out to be true or false or nonsense.

A false belief is just as convincing as a true one. Maybe you could think about some of the false beliefs you once harbored and how you came to repudiate them and replace them by ones you now think of as true. That is what we're talking about here.

@fmf said
You're simply running away from this topic, aren't you?

This thread and the posts within it aren’t talking about personalities, people, posters or truth claims, so KellyJay can’t really complain about it and therefore dodge the points put to him, so… he’s really trying to make out that this thread and the posts within it are talking about personalities, people, posters or truth claims, so KellyJay can really complain about it and therefore dodge the points put to him.

@divegeester said
This thread and the posts within it aren’t talking about personalities, people, posters or truth claims, so KellyJay can’t really complain about it and therefore dodge the points put to him, so… he’s really trying to make out that this thread and the posts within it are talking about personalities, people, posters or truth claims, so KellyJay can really complain about it and therefore dodge the points put to him.

Some people can’t abstract or generalize, they understand things only if they relate to their own person or experience.

@moonbus said
You really don’t get it. This isn't about "should."

All you've said so far is that whatever people believe, they believe to be true. DUH! That's so bloody obvious, it shouldn't have to be said. But that's not what this thread is about.

People do not go around beating the bushes looking for truths to believe. It's not like this: "O look! It says here in Encyclopedia Brit ...[text shortened]... diate them and replace them by ones you now think of as true. That is what we're talking about here.

You are saying It isn't about should, yet didn't I cover that by saying some accept
anything doesn't it matters not if it's true? Some accept things that, even if they
contradict one another, hang on anyway to be a part of the herd. Can someone
even in an abusive relationship accept abuse to fulfill a need? How about finding
someone to hate and dislike? They can build their views around what they dislike
instead of simply figuring out what is correct. If it is all about needs, there would
be no should. There would be, but the correctness or health of the choices being
made and why could not be understood if there isn't a 'should' you correcting me
here because I don't seem to be following your plan for the op in your eyes is done
with what, 'a should.' There is always a should, or it doesn't matter; anything will do;
the only time you can be wrong is if there is a right.

If we are not looking for what is real, for what is true, and only to satisfy some other
need/want any excuse will do. You are saying it's so obvious it shouldn't be said,
I'd beg to differ, people put off other's opinions, why simply because they are
opinions not the validity of what the opinion is based on, if you are not covering
all of the bases your assuming a great deal.

@kellyjay said
You are saying It isn't about should, yet didn't I cover that by saying some accept
anything doesn't it matters not if it's true? Some accept things that, even if they
contradict one another, hang on anyway to be a part of the herd. Can someone
even in an abusive relationship accept abuse to fulfill a need? How about finding
someone to hate and dislike? They can build th ...[text shortened]... what the opinion is based on, if you are not covering
all of the bases your assuming a great deal.

Is it or is it not your belief that everyone should believe in the God you believe in and that Hindus, for example, should stop believing in the gods they believe in?

@kellyjay said
They can build their views around what they dislike
instead of simply figuring out what is correct.

When you are here mentioning “dislikes” and presumably “likes” are you talking about people using their moral compass in a rational way to make decisions?

When you are here mentioning “correct” and presumably “incorrect” and people “figuring out” isn’t that people also using their moral compass in a rational way to make those decisions?

@moonbus said
Is it or is it not your belief that everyone should believe in the God you believe in and that Hindus, for example, should stop believing in the gods they believe in?

You won’t get a straight answer to that from Kellyjay.

@moonbus said
Is it or is it not your belief that everyone should believe in the God you believe in and that Hindus, for example, should stop believing in the gods they believe in?

If the truth is important, then accepting reality is important; my personal views
aside, only what is real is what matters, and as we look at things, we should be
bringing one truth we find, then line it up with others so that reality can become
clearer. Different views, if they are not bound to seeking out what is real, are
bound to something less, opinions and tastes.

When we define things in or out of reality, things that we dislike only because we
dislike them, that isn't seeking what is real and truthful; it is simply going back to
opinions and tastes. We will not be seeking truth but only those things that
confirm our desires.

Reality doesn't bend to our desires only opinions do. We have to be able to
acknowledge what is real and true even if it does not align with our desires, tastes,
and opinions. If confirmation bias is all people want to form their beliefs, they
will make things fit, regardless if they have to leave out some things they know
to be true to make it fit, or accept things that contradict other things they want
to accept, because they are making a choice, I want this to be true if it is or not.

@kellyjay said
If the truth is important, then accepting reality is important; my personal views
aside, only what is real is what matters, and as we look at things, we should be
bringing one truth we find, then line it up with others so that reality can become
clearer. Different views, if they are not bound to seeking out what is real, are
bound to something less, opinion ...[text shortened]... ings they want
to accept, because they are making a choice, I want this to be true if it is or not.

Reality is what it is, is what you're saying, Yes, that is true, but that is a) trivial, and b) not the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is what factors contribute to belief in supernatural things (e.g., Creationism, the Young Earth Hypothesis, the transcendent existence of a Great Big Tooth Fairy who grants immortality to good boys and girls and torments bad ones in an eternal Lake of Fire, etc.) for which evidence is either altogether lacking or entirely disputable.

@kellyjay said
If the truth is important, then accepting reality is important; my personal views
aside, only what is real is what matters, and as we look at things, we should be
bringing one truth we find, then line it up with others so that reality can become
clearer. Different views, if they are not bound to seeking out what is real, are
bound to something less, opinion ...[text shortened]... ings they want
to accept, because they are making a choice, I want this to be true if it is or not.

Would you concur with this proposition?

Generally, theists believe [with varying degrees of certainty] in their God figures because, having sought what they think is true and real, they perceive that their own conclusions / deductions make more sense to them than any of the alternatives.

Does that summarise your view?