Why Are Things Believed ?

@kellyjay said
What does this have to do with, if no natural explanation can account for everything
then does an explanation that has something transcending the natural required?

No idea. Stop dodging.

What is DOES have to with is what you wrote about likes and dislikes and figuring out what’s correct… and it is THAT which I specifically replied to. Here is is again for you as you seem determined to either ignite it or dodge it.

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?

@kellyjay said
You have a natural explanation?

For what ? That people believe different things ? Yes, people are different, they come from different backgrounds, have different experiences, have different languages and cultural symbols. So it shouldn't be surprising that they have different beliefs concerning supernatural causality.

@moonbus said
For what ? That people believe different things ? Yes, people are different, they come from different backgrounds, have different experiences, have different languages and cultural symbols. So it shouldn't be surprising that they have different beliefs concerning supernatural causality.

Let me once again go back to the premise, if there is no natural explanation by necessity this means that something that transcends the natural is by necessity the cause?

I am not talking about different views with different people who can disagree on anything. This question doesn’t change with respect to cultural norms, nor would the answer change with the passage of time, the answer won’t change depending on one’s education since we are not talking about people.

@divegeester said
No idea. Stop dodging.

What is DOES have to with is what you wrote about likes and dislikes and figuring out what’s correct… and it is THAT which I specifically replied to. Here is is again for you as you seem determined to either ignite it or dodge it.

When you are here mentioning “dislikes” and presumably “likes” are you talking about people using their moral ...[text shortened]... out” isn’t that people also using their moral compass in a rational way to make those decisions?

I am talking about if there is no natural explanation for the universe does this by necessity requires one that transcends nature.

@fmf said
Responding to my point-blank question with a counter-question is just you dodging.

Attempting to change the subject from what I am asking, is asking a question with nothing to do with my question.

@kellyjay said
I am talking about if there is no natural explanation for the universe does this by necessity requires one that transcends nature.

No, it does not.

I am not the least bit interested in whether the universe had a beginning, naturalistically explainable or otherwise.

What interests me is the belief some people, such as yourself, have that:

a) there must have been a beginning, and

b) if there is no readily available naturalistic explanation for a beginning, then there must be a transcendental/supernatural explanation, and

c) said supernatural explanatory principle is identical with the God of Abraham.

In the ancient Greek mythology, chaos or Mother Night always existed, timelessly; gods, titans, and humans came later. There was no beginning.

In the Buddhist scheme of things, it does not matter whether there was a beginning or no beginning; the beginning is undefined.

So, my question is: what are the factors dispositive of someone's believing that beginnings matter, that there was no beginning, or that it does not matter either way?

It is obvious that evidence is not one of the factors. There can be no evidence that there was no beginning; nor can there be any evidence that something (e.g., a creator entity beyond space and time) existed before the universe did; these hypotheses are unverifiable.

Such beliefs must be based on something other than evidence.

I am inclined to agree with @fmf, that social factors, upbringing, and cultural symbols, are primarily at work here. If one grows up in Europe or one of Europe's former colonies, where the Hebrew myth is widely known (even if not actually believed in literally), then one tends to think the beginning of the universe is something worth investigating, whether scientifically or, failing that, then theologically. Whereas, if one is brought up in a predominately Buddhist society, one probably does not concern oneself with this question much at all.

@moonbus said
No, it does not.

I am not the least bit interested in whether the universe had a beginning, naturalistically explainable or otherwise.

What interests me is the belief some people, such as yourself, have that:

a) there must have been a beginning, and

b) if there is no readily available naturalistic explanation for a beginning, then there must be a transcendental/ ...[text shortened]... redominately Buddhist society, one probably does not concern oneself with this question much at all.

So you don't care how and why things are the way they are; the truth of them is
also unimportant to you; you want to see why people think the way they do
without looking at why people may think the way they do, okay?

Good luck with that.

@kellyjay said
So you don't care how and why things are the way they are; the truth of them is
also unimportant to you; you want to see why people think the way they do
without looking at why people may think the way they do, okay?

Good luck with that.

Excuse me, but you're the one who is not looking at the way people think. You're only looking at how people think who happen to think the same way you do. The need to believe in an origin story is culturally specific to the Hebrews and their heirs. The need to believe in an origin story has nothing do with whether there was an origin; it's only to do with a culturally specific need to explain something. Pagan Greeks did not have this need; there was no beginning, Mother Night was timeless and there was no need to explain this. Hindus believe in endless cycles of Great Years (Yuga Cycles); in Hindu cosmology, each cycle lasts for 4,320,000 years (12,000 divine years) and repeats four yugas. There was no beginning and no need for an explanation-story about beginnings. The Buddhists, as I have said several times, say that the beginning is undefined, like division by zero -- it just doesn't figure in their cosmology. Again, no need for any explanation, either naturalistic or supernatural.

You are obviously fixated on beginnings, and in particular on one specific origin myth from the Middle East. That's your schtick. So, how did you come to believe this? Obviously you have a burning need to believe that there was an origin, but where did this need come from? Doesn't it occur to you that people from other cultures don't feel this burning need to explain origins and invent origin myths? I am quite willing to believe that your moral compass would go seriously off kilter if the Hebrew origin myth suddenly lost its credibility for you. Does it not occur to you that Aristotle did not need this particular myth to calibrate his moral compass? Does it not occur to you that Hindus and Buddhists don't need this particular myth to calibrate their moral compasses either? They're not maniacs, you know, running through the streets with axes killing each other just because they don't have an origin myth.

What makes you believe you can't know the 'how' or the 'why' if you don't know the origin? That's like saying you can't know a person if you weren't present at his birth.

@kellyjay said
Attempting to change the subject from what I am asking, is asking a question with nothing to do with my question.

You are trying to proselytise instead of talking about the topic.

@moonbus said
Excuse me, but you're the one who is not looking at the way people think. You're only looking at how people think who happen to think the same way you do. The need to believe in an origin story is culturally specific to the Hebrews and their heirs. The need to believe in an origin story has nothing do with whether there was an origin; it's only to do with a culturally specifi ...[text shortened]... n't know the origin? That's like saying you can't know a person if you weren't present at his birth.

I am looking at why, if all you want to do is think about people thinking so be it. I was going for cause, you just want to ponder, pondering 🤔. So I guess I should not have bothered.

@moonbus said
I am inclined to agree with @fmf, that social factors, upbringing, and cultural symbols, are primarily at work here.

I put it down to social psychology and anthropology. I think Christian belief in many instances is rooted in misanthropy and narcissism.

@kellyjay said
I am looking at why, if all you want to do is think about people thinking so be it. I was going for cause, you just want to ponder, pondering 🤔. So I guess I should not have bothered.

You are going for cause.

Why do some people believe they must fill the gap in human knowledge with the fruits of their speculation while others do not?

@fmf said
You are going for cause.

Why do some people believe they must fill the gap in human knowledge with the fruits of their speculation while others do not?

If you wish to look at and for reality, it's here; if you only want to make it up as you
go, you can color it any way you like; you will not change reality. It looks obvious
which pill you'd take if offered, the red one or the blue; ignore the truth or move
on and believe whatever you want. That is the truth about hard facts; they remain
the same regardless of how we deal with the gaps.

@kellyjay said
If you wish to look at and for reality, it's here; if you only want to make it up as you
go, you can color it any way you like; you will not change reality. It looks obvious
which pill you'd take if offered, the red one or the blue; ignore the truth or move
on and believe whatever you want. That is the truth about hard facts; they remain
the same regardless of how we deal with the gaps.

When it comes to "supernatural causality" and "reality", we can only speculate ~ as both you and I do. But why do some people believe that they can pass off the fruits of their speculation as "knowledge" while others do not?

@kellyjay said
I am looking at why, if all you want to do is think about people thinking so be it. I was going for cause, you just want to ponder, pondering 🤔. So I guess I should not have bothered.

The thread is about belief in supernatural causality and factors underpinning such belief. If you want to argue cosmology or metaphysics, start your own thread.