Dual standard for belief

[cosmik debris]

In civil suits the standard for proof is typically “preponderance of the evidence” while criminal prosecution requires proof “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.

It appears to me that theists have set up a similar dual standard for belief, one for religious matters and one for used car salesmen etc.

This is not intended as a value judgment, just an observation. But it raised questions in my mind. Do theists apply the less rigorous standard in any other parts of their lives? How do they decide which standard to apply?

Please share your insight into how theists decide what to believe and what to disbelieve.

[kwassa]

1. I think you are really talking about is standards of evidence

not belief.

What constitutes evidence to support belief is the key question.

[cosmik debris]

2. Thank you for your response

But you did not answer any of my questions. How do theists decide what to believe and what to disbelieve?

[kwassa]

3. I'm sure it is different for every individual theist and non-theist

Each of us human beings arrive at our beliefs through a mixture of education, life experience, and thought processes. I don't see a double standard because all of these items are brought to bear on all of our beliefs. All of us are rational and non-rational, as part of our being, and our beliefs reflect both sides of that.

I think that many atheists come from the notion that the only valid evidence is scientific evidence, whereas theists can see that other forms of evidence in terms of spiritual experience as valid, and also accept but sometimes reject scientific evidence.

[cosmik debris]

4. But how do you decide which evidence to accept

And which to reject? I am interested in the decision making process. Can you describe that process?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I agree that we all use different mixtures

As an atheist, whether 'spiritual' experience counts for me is a grey area - because I find the definition of 'spiritual' very fuzzy. I think I'd say I've never had a spiritual experience; but sometimes when I hear what other people define as 'spiritual', I think I have, but I haven't attributed it to anything religious, theistic or supernatural. I've stood on top of a mountain and thought "wow, life and the world are amazingly great", or "aren't my friends just the best bunch you could ever hope for", or "she's the best woman in the world", but to me that's not spiritual. In particular, I haven't felt, since I have been an adult, that there are 'spirits' or souls that aren't just the mind of a living human being (or, in a very primitive way, another animal such as a dog). Perhaps I am taking my spiritual experience into account - which is that I've had none, and most religious people have had experiences that I haven't. I do treat what people say about that as hearsay, and when people's reported experiences seem vague and unconnected with each other, they don't seem like useful evidence to me.

It's true, though, that if I did start to think some spirit external to me was making itself known in some way to me, I'd analyse it with quite a sceptical point of view before accepting it as external.

[Totallybushed]

6. My guess is that

they arrive at their beliefs the same ways that atheists and agnostics arrive at theirs. Some inherit them from their parents and never question them seriously. Others arrive at them, when, in some life crisis, the faith makes sense to them and/or gives them comfort. Others come to either faith or non-faith, when, after considerable study and thought, they base their decision on all the evidence available to them and choose what seems to them the more likely alternative.

I'm not sure it matters why people make these decisions the way that they do. What matters is which decision they make and how it affects them and others.

On edit: I read some of the other responses. What evidence do you accept, it asked? I think in the final analysis any decision is a matter of faith, because the existence of God, or gods, is essentially unknowable, unless, of course, He makes His existence known to us. In the end, I think, it is a matter of individual taste. Remeber, there's no disputing taste.

[cosmik debris]

7. That is what matters to you

But I have a different interest. I want to know all of the elements that go into the decision making process. I want to know how people evaluate evidence. I want to know why people accept less evidence for some decisions than other decisions.

Perhaps I should explain that my interest in this subject was motivated by an acquaintance that only believes those things that he wants to be true and disbelieves anything that he doesn't want to be true. I considered this to be a VERY BAD way to decide what to believe, so I thought I would ask others how they decide.

Thank you for your input.

[Totallybushed]

44. Again, I think it will

be different for every individual. Some people are more sensitive than others, some are more educated, some are wealthier, happier, more drug-free. All our lives we have had to make various decisions and choices. All our lives things have happened to us that we had absolutely no control over, starting with being born, or even conceived.

We have different genetic inheritances, different cultural inheritances. For instance, America is a pretty individualistic country. Other societies, even other cultures in America itself, may place more emphasis on the family, or the ethnic group, or the "old" country than do most Anglo-Americans, for instance. Or maybe not.

So when we have to make a decision like that, well there a lot of history providing data with which we evaluate what looks at first glance like a relatively straight-forward decision.

I don't know if I've helped any with my explanation. Let me ask you a question. Do you know why and how you make such decisions? Assuming for the sake of argument that you think all of your decisions are made on facts & logic, are you absolutely sure that you have all the facts, and are you absolutely sure that your logic is totally uncontaminated by emotion. Do you believe what you believe, to even the slightest degree by what you want?

Somebody once said, I don't remember who, that "all opinions are matters of taste, including morals". I don't totally agree with that, but I believe that it is a factor to be examined, if the subject of decision making interests you. Some people will use logic more than others, some people will have a more complete set of facts, but nobody is totally immune to emotion, and nobody has all the facts.

The rational, reasonable person will change his opinion when the verifiable facts available to him change.

[cosmik debris]

48. I failed to ask my question properly

When I asked how theists do it, I was expecting one theist to answer "Well, I do it this way." and another theist would say, "Well, I do it like this." The "everybody is different" response is not wrong, but it doesn't help me understand. I need data! I should have asked what personal factors influence YOUR decision on what to believe and what to disbelieve.

Regarding your question, atheists are usually characterized by our disbelief rather than our belief. We are often known for skepticism. We make decisions based on probability of truth rather than certainty of our belief. When the probability changes the decision changes. Atheists typically use the highest standard for belief because we don't find it necessary to believe unequivocally when we can believe probably. Being absolutely right is not required unless you have a lot of skin in the game.

[Totallybushed]

93. All right.

As a believer, I got my start with my parent's faith. As I grew older and hopefully wiser, I doubted and questioned. I looked at the evidence for, and against. Unlike you, I don't think that atheism is a position of skepticism. Agnosticism is, but atheism is, in my view, as faith-based as any other belief system.

In the end, it was personal experience that led me to embrace the faith of my fathers, so to speak. As the experiences were personal, I won't go into any detail. Let me just say that faith enabled me to endure circumstances similar to those that caused a friend to attempt suicide. Thank God, he made a miserable failure of the attempt.

Now, you could say that the circumstances were not identical, and you would be correct. You could say that I had a stronger core personality than my friend. I'd like to think so, but I don't know that it is so. Or that my family was more supportive than his. All these things may be true. But faith is the explanation that works for me.

It's not scientific. It is not an experiment that can be repeated. There may be other explanations. It works for me.

At the same time, I am willing to consider things outside the frame of my faith. I haven't lost my ability to reason or observe. I just happened to be there, and know what happened. That's why I believe. Personal experience.

[Zhade]

98. Atheism is not faith-based.

Unless you are referring to "strong" atheism, the only flavor of atheism that asserts with certainty that there are no gods.

An agnostic atheist like myself is one who, due to the lack of evidence for the existence of gods (agnostic, without knowledge), simply does not believe in any of them (atheist, without god-belief). Were evidence (aside from subjective claims of feelings/emotions/etc) to appear, I would reevaluate.

Atheists who do not assert for a fact that gods don't exist are not operating on faith.

</public service announcement>

[rock]

8. People choose a belief system based on subject area

Even theists go to a mechanic when their car doesn't start. Generally, if the subject area is technology, people are rationalists, meaninging needing rational reasons for their actions and beliefs. So I agree with your basic tenet. Now as to which standard to apply, I don't know. In your example of law, these are standards of proof (as you point out), but they are both rational. The other choice seems to be based on faith. I am glad our system of law chose rational.

[cosmik debris]

9. That makes sense

So let me throw in a wild card. Every good gambler knows that the odds are not affected by the potential pay off. Is it possible that theists see the high stakes afterlife game as a rationale for a different standard of evidence/belief/proof?

[rock]

10. Well, since you ask, I'll ramble on a bit

I'm an aetheist. I try to have beliefs based on the rational. But I have absolutely no qualms about people having religious beliefs. Now as to the infamous argument summarized as "it's a good gamble" , I've always seen it as fatuous. Imagine you're God. Imagine that here's a worshiper that has decided to believe in You based on this argument, (that is because it's a good bet). How do You feel about this? I would send him staight to Hell. In fact, Hell is too good for him, I'd think up something worse. Just my take.

[cosmik debris]

11. Unfortunately I agree with you

It is fun and gratifying to have agreement, but it does not add to my understanding of how theists make decisions. Atheists can explain the process in understandable terms, but theists tend to obfuscate the process and deal with definitions evidence or belief. It is as if they had no use for Occam's Razor.

I suspect that the theist decision making process is so alien to atheist that we will never be able to understand. But I will try, just out of curiosity.

Thanks for your 2 cents, I am slightly richer.

[Finder]

14. I don't think it is alien...

since many atheists were once theists.

[cosmik debris]

16. And I am one of those

Former theists. But my decision making process that led me to be a theists was simply to ask one question: Will I do what I am told is right?

When I expanded my decision making process to include examining evidence, cross-examining evidence, testing theories and applying critical thinking, I realized that I was not making a theological decision, but rather a social decision to submit to the dominant way of thinking. It had no relation to whether there was a god or not, it was just a decision to get along. When I changed my conclusion about god, social acceptance was not so important anymore.

[Finder]

19. Actually, if you think about it, most were not offered a choice...

but were brought up with certain beliefs and were expected to believe. Sincere questions by children are met with answers such as..."God works in mysterious ways", "It is one of the mysteries", "God has his reasons", or the one I dislike the most.."The devil makes one doubt" etc...

I think sometimes this causes more division within families than peer pressure.

[Finder]

12. This is a good question that has stirred...

many a theist into self-analyzing. It is what separates the open-minded from the delusional. That is why the teaching of logic is seen as detrimental to fundamentalists...and why there are not many theists in science. For example, the Catholic Church kept control of the sciences prior to the enlightenment.(which is a whole other thread in itself)

[TreasonousBastard]

13. There is no rational decision-making process...

it is entirely from "experience." At least it is for those who don't just accept what their clergy tells them, and even there it is still heavily based on emotion, instinct, and experience-- what works for you works for you.

Now, you say, this is no way to structure a belief system that defines your way of life and may decide the fate of your immortal soul. You do have a point there.

However, all of us have arrived at our core beliefs through some path. Many of them were inherited from family and community, and others we developed on our own. Few of them have been through serious study or rational thought-- most of us just don't have the time to study philosophy and theology that deeply. We have gravitated toward systems of belief or nonbelief that appeal to us on a base level, and most of us haven't strayed all that far from our roots. I know many Jews and Christians who have changed their affiliations, but few who have converted far outside of their faiths. I know even more who have simply left their faiths, and I think there are subtle differences between Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu... atheists, if only for cultural reasons. But, i digress...

So, then, we have come to some destination, or pathway, through largely emotional means and now we still don't study theology or rationalize our new beliefs. We found some attraction in this path, and we rely primarily on the theologians and prior or historical revelations that made it attractive to lead the way and do the heavy thinking.

[Finder]

15. In my experience...atheists are more knowlegeable about religion..

than theists. Most people do not seem to want to understand things below the surface. Most are comfortable with their beliefs and feel since so many others share them there is no harm holding them or reason for questioning them or understanding them.

This applies to other areas such as politics too.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Some atheists, who have...

found some reason to gain that knowledge. But most assuredly not all.

I have found little difference between the simplistic acceptance by many theists of their doctrines and the simplistic understanding of religion among many atheists. Studying these things is actually a bit of work, and most people have better things to do.

[Finder]

20. Perhaps agnostics but not atheists.

I have never met a simplistic atheist.

[kwassa]

52. I have met many.

[cosmik debris]

24. There is a difference

Atheists do not need to understand religion in order to reject the existence of a diety. Generally speaking, atheists look at the evidence for a deity and say "That's not sufficient." So the complexities of a religion have no bearing on the decision to reject deity.

[Finder]

26. One must understand religion in order to glean any evidence...

for or against. What you are stating is akin to saying a juror does not need to know the case in order to decide.

I do agree that many do not but nor do they call themselves atheists. You are describing agnostics.

[cosmik debris]

30. Not so

What I am saying is that the juror must decide whether a crime has been committed before he can determine guilt. If no crime is committed, the deliberation stops.

That is the way many atheists reach their conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the existence of a diety, so there is no point in deciding between Jesus and Thor. Understanding the wisdom of Moses is not relevant to the decision if there is no diety to start with.

[Finder]

31. Then I must misunderstand what you are saying...

or the other way around. A case does not go to a jury unless a crime has been committed. Unless you are limiting the analogy to a grand jury which decides to indict not convict.

I think you are referring to agnostics rather than atheists.IMO

[cosmik debris]

34. It was your analogy

But imagine a defendant charged with grand larceny. The defense establishes that the monetary value of the alleged crime did not rise to the level of grand larceny. The jury cannot render a guilty verdict on the charge of grand larceny because there was no such crime committed.

Or by the Grand Jury analogy, If there is insufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, there is no need to discuss the actions of the alleged criminal. In theological terms, if there is insufficient evidence that god exists, there is no reason to study god or the religions that deal with god.

And what gave you the idea that I was talking about agnostics, have I said anything about agnostics? They don't really play any part in this discussion. It reminds me of a lot of times I have run across people who think that atheists are really agnostics--that disbelief equals doubt. And that is not true.

[Finder]

37. That is not the way the justice system works...if no crime, case dropped.

but I do understand what you are saying in the second paragraph and agree.

I think the misunderstanding is that in order to decide there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity, one must know what others base their beliefs on.

[cosmik debris]

38. I don't buy that

I admit that is is convenient to have knowledge of other's mistakes, but it is not necessary to know of those mistakes in order to avoid them.

I don't know why people believed in Zeus, but I can reject Zeus without knowing anything about his believers or his philosophy. I do this based entirely on the lack of evidence that Zeus ever existed.

With that in mind, how would it benefit me to study the religion of ancient Rome?

[Finder]

42. Ancient Greece...but, I doubt anyone believed in Zeus the way some...

assume they did.

I would think it is easy to reject Zeus based on the fact nobody is saying he is real. Unlike the Jehovah followers trying to force the country to comply with his writings.

[cosmik debris]

43. If you are saying

That the believers in Zeus are less sincere than the believers in Jesus, you need to back that up. What basis do you have for this conclusion?

Edit: My rejection of Zeus or Jesus is not related in any way to the number of followers or the sincerity of their belief.

[Finder]

46. Pagan/Pantheistic and Monotheistic theology...

are very different. But that aside...rejection of certain theologies and non-belief in any deity or deities is different, no?

[Orrex]

32. How does one "understand religion" exactly?

And who gets to decide whether someone else has understood it?

In a nutshell, I disagree that it is necessary to understand religion prior to rejecting it as a means of clarifying the world or improving one's life. I don't understand advanced fluid dynamics, for example, but I reject it as a method of achieving a better understanding of why my cat insists on waking me at 6:45 every morning. Fluid dynamics has nothing to say about my annoying cat, just as religion has nothing do say about life in general.

In my experience, religion seems a tool not clearly suited to any particular job. At least, no job for which a better tool is not already available.

My overall framing of the issue goes like this:

I have encountered nothing for which religion (and/or belief in a deity or the supernatural) provides a better explanation or method of coping than empiricism, and often religion provides no real explanation or aid at all.

YMMV, of course.

[Finder]

33. Sounds like you understand since...

you realize it is a way some try to explain things or cope with issues they don't have answers for.

[cosmik debris]

17. no rational decision-making process?

The unexamined life is not worth living. I did not make that up, but I can't remember right now who said that. Perhaps another reader might help.

Your implication is that the decision to believe in a deity is based on circumstances not rational deduction. I can accept that as a possible explanation, but how do theists decide what NOT to believe? (or to avoid a semantic argument, how do theists decide what to disbelieve?) Is that circumstantial too?

[Finder]

22. Socrates. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

23. How do you rationally decide who to love? There are ..

vast parts of our lives that are not fully rational, and that is what separates us from the rest of the fauna here.

Purely from my observations, I would say that disbelief tends to be more on the rational side, but I can't prove that. It just seems that those who reject certain doctrines tend to put more thought into the process than those who accept them. There is, of course, a lot more rejection of doctrine than creating of doctrine going on, so we would see more of that. Creation of doctrine also often does attempt to be rational, but then acceptance of that doctrine normally would not be.

At any rate, I'm from the universalist, non-doctrinaire, wing of it all, and my belief structure is almost entirely emotional and experiential. Not that I haven't attempted to work out some things logically, but far too much theology is concerned with the nature of God, the afterlife, and all sorts of other things that are essentially unknowable, and therefore irrelevant to what I consider faith so I don't go there often. It also means that whatever I believe is only truth to myself and while I may have stumbled on some universal truth here and there, I wouldn't argue the point.

[Finder]

28. Love is not so mysterious...

to anyone who understands biology and psychology.

[cosmik debris]

29. Now that is "On Point"

In my OP I asked "Do theists apply the less rigorous standard in any other parts of their lives? and you reply that love has a less rigorous standard.

Am I summarizing you correctly when I say belief is circumstantial/emotional and disbelief is rational.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I just want to understand in the simplest terms.

Edit: Your middle paragraph was the most insightful response I have seen to this thread, Thank you.

[TreasonousBastard]

62. Not entirely...

since both sides have elements of the rational and non-rational, and individuals vary greatly in how they approach these things.

Everyone starts from some first principles-- Aristotle's argument for a prime mover was thoroughly rational in his assumed universe and Augustine, Aquinas and Barclay didn't stray too far from his universe in their proofs of God.

Let's say we start with the two fundamental suppositions that the universe is either ordered or random. There's no way to prove one way or the other so you pick a side, largely based on intuition. If you pick ordered, it's easy to be lead to the idea of an "orderer" and that easily becomes God. Then you have the problem of figuring out just what the nature of this God is, also unprovable but you give it your best shot. All very logical and rational, noting the constraints of having very little actual data to work with. Should you pick random, it's a bit more difficult to explain why it doesn't just fly apart, so even there a god may come in handy to put things back together, and you still have the problem of how this all works.

This is great sport and good mental exercise, like any set of hypotheses, until somebody starts to take things too seriously, or uses one of the structures developed for venal purposes. Then it can get nasty when jealous gods are invented to keep people in line and consolidate power.

By now, we've been through this for thousands of years so there's very little being done in the prime supposition area and new religions aren't that common. Most current religions have been around for a long time, or have taken their core beliefs from the ancients. So, the heavy lifting tends to be done by the serious nonreligious crowd. It wasn't all that long ago that Kirkegaard would have been burned at the stake. Even during the Enlightenment, very few dared to publicly air atheistic views no matter how much they questioned religion. And don't try to convince me Franklin and Jefferson weren't really atheists at heart, but just couldn't come out of that particular closet back then. Probably couldn't now, either, come to think of it.

Ultimately, we are either theologians/philosophers or followers. Atheism, as defined as the secure belief that there is no God, requires every bit as much proof as theism since it is an absolute statement. Since atheism doesn't have the structures that theism has, there are fewer atheist followers and not much for them to follow, so they would tend to have to think more on their own. But, just as there are theists who drink the Kool-aid, there are those atheists who have just latched on to what they see as a good thing without much thought put to it.

[cosmik debris]

74. What I am getting

from most of the contributors here is that belief is based on an emotional value described as instinct or intuition, while disbelief is based on a conflict with that belief.

Theists believe because they want to, they disbelieve because they are forced into a binary win/lose situation by their decision to believe. Disbelief is a result of the process of elimination. i.e. "It can't be true because it conflicts with what I want to believe for emotional reasons."

You have shed quite a bit of light here, do you think I am off-base in that conclusion?

[TreasonousBastard]

79. Probably mostly true...

but I would be afraid to generalize too much.

I would put the emphasis on just what people are seeking. We are spiritual creatures, and many of us are looking for that meaning of life stuff, which religion fulfills very well.

Is the atheist simply rejecting what he sees as foolishness and superstition, or actively seeking something? Is a particular atheist coming to that position positively as an exploration of his concept of spirituality, or negatively as a rejection of divinity or spirituality in general?

I would say that most of the "non-religious" I've known have either come from nonreligious families or had serious issues with the religions they were brought up in. I don't know that many who have actually thought through the whole thing and come to a fully rational conclusion. I do know a lot of people who just gave up on the whole thing and threw religion away as largely useless to them. To tell the truth, I was one of those for a long time.

[Zhade]

99. "Atheism, as defined as the secure belief that there is no God"

Please be careful to differentiate this as "strong atheism", which is only one form of atheism.

My atheism, for example, does not contain the belief that there are no gods. I just don't believe in them due to the lack of evidence. If evidence comes along, I'll look at the concept again.

[cosmik debris]

100. Labels are not helpful

The purpose of my OP was to determine how theists decide to be theists.

The answer seems to be (oversimplified) "I experienced certain feelings and interpreted them in this way."

What they did not say (which surprised me) is "I observed certain phenomena and interpreted them in this way."

It seems that these answers represent one of the fundamental differences between theists and atheist no matter what label they carry.

[Finder]

25. Well that is another point...theists tend to be followers(personalities)

and leaders tend to be Deists or Atheists. Not that most don't use religion to attain power. Theists are usually easy pickings because of the suspension of belief already ingrained. Pure psychology.

[Ron Green]

21. Perhaps if you would define "theist"

You're asking how "theists" decide what to consider as evidence and what to ignore, and several have answered that it depends on the individual and his or her life so far. And then you're again asking for some insight into the process of how mind of the "theist" works.

It seems that "theists" differ in their cognitive processes just as all people differ. And in the realm of spiritual experience and belief, corporeal proof is only part of the picture. Trying to apply scientific or evidentiary standards to life's big mysteries just doesn't work.

[cosmik debris]

27. I will NOT define theists

There have been WAY TOO MANY threads in this forum where one group defines another group. If you define yourself as a theist I will accept your answer as valid for one theist. If you do not define yourself as a theist, please add your insight with that disclaimer. Thank you.

[Ron Green]

36. Speaking for only myself, then,

I suppose I am a theist, since I believe in God (or does that make me a deist? These labels are sometimes confusing.) In any case, I believe that in your OP you referred to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when the actual legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And this "reasonable doubt" is important, because your physical, biological or psychological evidence can only take you so far along the path in the search for truth. I, like you, was a theist who became an atheist. For at least a decade of my life I held to a rigorous standard of logic and reason, because that's who I had become. I've now become someone who has not thrown these standards away, but who has added other dimensions to his awareness. I choose what to believe and what not to believe based, as others in this thread have written, on my study, experience, reflection and yes, a certain intuition that I did not possess as a younger man.

[Finder]

40. Labels are often misleading., but here are my summaries...

Theist--belief in a god or gods based on doctrine and/or theology.--mass appeal.

Deist--belief in a creator or "architect of the universe"(usually nature)but no basis in theology or doctrine.--The safe label for politicians.

Agnostic--belief we cannot know for sure. Usually rejects revealed theology.--Safe label in Europe for politicians.

Atheist--no belief in deity(ies)or theological conclusions.--the unsafe label to adopt in society apparently.

[cosmik debris]

41. In an earlier post

kwassa used the phrase "accept but sometimes reject scientific evidence"

Is this a part of your new-found wisdom? Can you speculate on how wide-spread this is in the theist community? And I am also curious as to what led you to place "a certain intuition" into a position equal to your previous position of "a rigorous standard of logic and reason".

I am curious about how that transition took place--if you are willing to share.

[Ron Green]

53. Glad to share.

In the journey to know myself, I left the "home" of my original religious instruction (a somewhat liberal mainstream Protestant church that emphasized study and tolerance) to do battle in the world of ideas, acquiring enough knowledge and experience to reject the doctrine of my youthful training and claim the position of Atheism, based upon the complete lack of hard evidence of the existence of God. As I have grown older, I've come to experience and expect aspects of my life to exist beyond the realm of evidence. Additionally, I feel my early religious training, based more in scholarship and ecumenicism than in fear, has allowed me to return home to a God that is loving and eternal, not wrathful or jealous.

[cosmik debris]

54. I don't want to pick your ideas to pieces

But the part that interests me is "I've come to experience and expect aspects of my life to exist beyond the realm of evidence" I don't even know what questions to ask here, but I wish that you could elaborate on that sentence to give me a better feel for your EXPECTATIONS? Why do you NOT expect things to to be in the realm of evidence? Or did I mis-state your thoughts?

[kwassa]

57. Not speaking for Ron, but expectations had nothing to do with it.

Having a spiritual experience is simply having it. It isn't expected, it just happens, as to Saul on the road to Damascus. Once it happens, awareness grows, and the experience can be pursued.

I would describe it a little differently, though. It is evidence, but evidence that is experiential, with an internal recognition of it's truth. It is a form of knowing.

[Ron Green]

63. What you said.

I agree that it IS evidence of a different sort. This puts it better than I did in my previous post. A kind of knowing, and in its own way more rigorous and challenging than "science-based" knowledge, because the roadmap is internal.

[cosmik debris]

67. Internal road map, expectations?

Don't these things prejudice your interpretation? Are you predisposed to believe that the unusual experience is a religious experience? How do you decide that something out of the ordinary in NOT a religious experience?

What standards do you use to test the evidence and the validity of the arguments before concluding that the experience is religious rather than just a case of some bad mushrooms on the pizza?

I appreciate your responsiveness, but I am still at a loss.

[Ron Green]

86. The unusual experience might or might not be religious;

I think at a certain point it doesn't matter, because religion has become, for me, not a separate compartment of my life, but my life itself. Perhaps the individual should eventually outgrow the need for doctrine, as well as dependence upon evidence and proof. This is the way it's developing for me, and I liken it to literature's most-used theme, which is the departure from home, the journey fraught with enemies and perils, and the return home to a place at once the same and completely different from before.

I'd be interested in knowing your age, because when I was an atheist I was in my 40's. Are you older than this? Was your early religious training or experience supportive and inquisitive, or was it full of fear or dogma?

I think that both Trotsky and T.Grannie have contributed thoughtfully in this thread, albeit from different points of view. I appreciate your inquisitiveness and your willingness to listen.

[cosmik debris]

88. FYI

I am 56 yrs old and a graduate of Baylor University class of '72. It was at the largest Baptist university that I learned the value of atheism. But I did not learn it in the religion classes I was forced to take, I learned it studying the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. I was constantly told that the Greek/Roman religion was myth. So I compared it to Christianity and found little or no substantive difference. I certainly found no reason to find Christianity more compelling than the Roman pantheon. So I gave up religion altogether and I have never been happier about it than I am today. It has made my life so much better that I can no longer remember the how I tolerated the concept of theism within myself. It is so alien to me that I have to start threads like this to help me keep in touch with the theist world, and to remember how I struggled with these same concepts 35 yrs ago.

I am beginning to think I should have asked why people decide rather than how they decide. Atheist frequently don't decide. And we are comfortable with that. Theist on the other hand seem to have a need for absolute certainty. But that is another thread.

[Ron Green]

90. That's a pretty heavy dose - Baylor in the late '60's.

I know that chapel was still mandatory at that time, and I can imagine how the "classics" must have been treated, not to mention humanistic philosophers. I knew some people at Baylor during that time (I was at UT in Austin a few years before that, and we always looked toward Waco with some trepidation, maybe deep down worried that they were right!)

Anyway, I wish you well in your inquiry about theists' decision-making process. I don't really know if I qualify as a theist or not, because my idea of God is now so all-encompassing as to rule out any sort of category or denomination for me. I can only say that logic and reason are some of my favorite tools, but they're not the only ones I use.

Peace and best wishes!

:toast:

[struggle4progress]

35. You want to lower the evidentiary standards for criminal conviction

to those of personal belief? And then ... we could just have a "Decider" (say) who decided guilt or innocence based on his/her own personal belief?

Or do you want the law to require people's personal beliefs to meet the current standards for criminal conviction? And then ... we could have public trials testing the quality of people's personal beliefs?

What actual material difference would an answer to your inquiry make?

[cosmik debris]

39. I am trying to improve my understanding

Of the way theist think. It is not a profound world changing result, but I would find it personally helpful to understand better.

And NO, I did not say I wanted the things that you say I want. I used the criminal/civil court analogy for the purpose of explaining how dual systems work and how they may be legitimate. You have created a straw man argument.

[struggle4progress]

45. I only asked some questions to attempt to clarify your aims.

How do you expect discussion of standards of evidence to shed light on why people adopt certain religious views? In such matters, people generally seem to decide what their views are, then (if necessary) look for evidence to support their views -- so understanding how people think about such matters requires understanding their inclinations, the psychological or political benefits of the belief, and so on -- all matters most folk don't want probed too deeply ...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. Personally, I use intuition in both cases

I've gone up to people and had the feeling, "Bad dude-don't buy anything from this joker!", and I follow it. Same way I've used intutition to tell me whether or not to investigate certain faiths and spiritual practices. No, it's not "logical" but it is my standard for deciding things.

[cosmik debris]

49. Wonderful answer

Thank you for your input.

[SPKrazy]

50. My Spiritual Beliefs Are Felt In My Heart

not quite sure how to quantify that for you cosmic

It's not my job to prove the existence of a deity to you.

If you want to know about my beliefs, I'll be happy to share.

But otherwise, live and let live.

I'm fairly rigorous in applying standards to ALL areas of my life

[cosmik debris]

56. I take that to mean

That you did not decide on your belief or disbelief. The ideas traveled from emotion to faith without a stop at the (metaphorical)intellectual coffee shop on the corner. Is that a reasonable interpretation?

Do you apply the same standard of belief to the used car salesman as to the Priest/Rabbi/Shaman or whatever? Does the Priest of Apollo have the same credibility as the Priest of St. Peter? Why/why not?

[SPKrazy]

58. No It's Not That Simple

If you are saying (and I think you are) that I put no serious thought into my beliefs, then you are mistaken. The thought goes into considering just exactly what this spiritual feeling I have is.

I've felt it in my life, it has helped me to deal with numerous events, good and bad. I've seen it working in others (perhaps the most convincing to me)and I can retrospectively see that it has had a profound effect on my life over the last 20 years.

But to quantify it is to trivialize it in my opinion. I attend a fairly liberal church where no one demands a "testimony" or any other such thing. I'd be happy to give one, and someone might like to hear it. I am by no means a traditional Christian. I have wrestled with the idea as to whether I really am a Christian, since the tenets of Christianity (traditional) have left me wondering about it all.

Therefore, I keep it as simple as I can. I attend Church a couple of times a month, probably more for the social aspects of it. I pray to my higher power, or God, pretty much daily. I don't always "feel" the presence of that spirit. But when I do, it is peaceful, pleasant, loving, and powerful.

As to car salesmen I tend to be a good reader of body language and have had a lot of experience working with alcoholics and drug addicts in my career in the past and have a good feel for truth.

I always walk into a business situation with the old adage, let the buyer beware in the back of my mind.

I'm not good at buying cars. My wife gets mad at me when we do. We will discuss our strategy, and I probably do let emotions take over.

But, on the other hand, my wife and I have usually researched the vehicle we are interested in buying and know what we want. She always thinks we could buy it for less than I do and consequently we may (or may not) pay a few hundred more than she thinks we should.

As to the priest of Apollo, I've never met one. I would have to understand what the priest of Apollo was about, what his/her beliefs were, etc.

I'm skeptical of ministers, and have little trust for a lot of them. Especially the ones who advertise their megachurches on TV. I have no respect usually for televangelists as I see them as trying to get money out of housebound folks, mostly the elderly who have precious little money to give them often.

Back to the first question- did I make a choice to believe? Yes I did. I don't really understand how one comes to a belief without making a decision.

I came to a point where I had tried everything I knew of to stop drinking. AA helped me stop. They didn't make me believe in God, or brainwash me (although if anyone's brain needed a cleaning it was mine) The idea of a power greater than myself has gone through the distillery (so to speak) in coming to believe in what I do today.

So, as I type, I'm realizing that I've probably written more than you wanted to read.

Peace

[cosmik debris]

68. I will try again

And I hope you will answer briefly.

Let's rephrase the question. Christians say Jesus is the Messiah. Jews say Jesus is NOT the Messiah.

How do you determine who is right? How do you evaluate the arguments, how do you test the evidence?

How do you determine who is wrong? What arguments or evidence fails to meet your standards for validity? What are those standards?

[SPKrazy]

92. For Me It Isn't My Job To Determine Who Is Right And Who Is Wrong

I see the possibility that both are right.

Maybe Jesus was a messiah for people other than the Jews.

Maybe God expresses him/her/itself through people all the time.

Maybe there are some people who have been more aware and in touch with this possibility.

Maybe we are all children of God.

I just don't get caught up in who's right, who's wrong.

I'm sure that to someone who sees things in black and white, right or wrong, that is very hard to understand.

Fundamentalists of all shades tend to think that way which is what makes them both dangerous, and necessary.

Fundamentalist Christians serve a purpose in the larger picture of Christianity, they bring those of us on the liberal end back towards the middle, and visa versa (hopefully)

Weak and Strong Atheists balance out a viewpoint as well.

I see the world differently than you expect me to answer.

As my other answer obviously didn't hit home with you, maybe this will.

Or maybe it's impossible to grasp if things have to be right or wrong, or black and white.

[cosmik debris]

94. I was looking for the views of theists not agnostics

Maybe is not the response of a theist. Thank you anyway.

[SPKrazy]

95. self delete

[beam me up scottie]

97. What?

I've never heard a liberal theist claim absolute knowledge about which belief is the right one.


That's like saying that I'm not an atheist because I don't claim absolute knowledge that there are no gods.

[SPKrazy]

96. I Just Fucking Know!

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Faith has little to do with "proof"

So your example just doesn't work.

(And it's "beyond a reasonable doubt").

[cosmik debris]

55. What example are you talking about?

I am not asking about proof for faith, I am asking how theists decide what to believe and what to disbelieve. Do you have a view on that? Would you share how YOU decide what to believe and what to disbelieve?

[SPKrazy]

59. Question

and I ask for honesty.

Is there a bit of snarkiness in your original question? As in theists must not be able to think things through? (I realize you didn't say that, it's just an impression is all)

thanks

[cosmik debris]

60. I don't understand

In my OP I stated that I am not making a value judgment and I cited an example of the proper legitimate use of a dual standard for proof. If you don't like the questions, you may reserve your answers.

[SPKrazy]

61. Okay

"If you don't like the questions, you may reserve your answers"

I asked for an honest answer to my question.

You say you are not making a value judgment.

I'll take you at your word then.

[JerseygirlCT]

66. Sure

A combination of thoughtfulness (introspection), intellect, and instinct. There isn't a formula, I'm afraid.

I've always had a sense of a divine presence. I still believe that divine is simply too vast for me to really comprehend with my human limitations. But insofar as I can comprehend it, I can work to do so. I think outside influences -- other people's ideas, any religious construct, can help by providing more food for thought. For me, though, I think the journey will ultimately be a personal one.


(Oh, and apologies for not being clear: I was referring to your comparision to legal standards... I just don't think something like belief can be fit into that mold.)

[cosmik debris]

76. I used the legal analogy to show that dual standards are legit.

You were not the only respondent to assume that I was trying to force religious decisions into a judicial model. That was not my intent. It is clear now that I could have phrased that better.

Thanks.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. Sorry I jumped to that conclusion as well

I see what you were saying now...

[bluesbassman]

64. Interesting question cosmic.

And the answer is.....Both!

In your OP, you infer that a theist uses "preponderance of evidence" when evaluating religious matters, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the correct term as stated elsewhere)when buying a used car. But what you did not ask or infer, is that it is possible to use both standards simultaneously.

Let's take a look at your used car transaction. First, one should acquire a "preponderance of evidence" in the form of safety check, mileage verification, collision record etc., to satisfy the evidentiary phase. Second, one should assure oneself "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the salesman is not lying or misleading the salient facts concerning the car (was it really driven only by a little old lady) to eliminate any "reasonable doubt". Thus both standards have been utilized in the transaction.

Next we look at how one might use the same methodology for "religious matters". First I think it would be logical to assume that a "preponderance of evidence" supports some scripture, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" for example, can hardly be argued against as an unsound principle. Second, we come to the "reasonable doubt" test. This is where it becomes an individual metric when applied to questions the individual is seeking answers to. If the answer one finds in a religious teaching overcomes any "doubt" for the individual in that area, then the standard is fulfilled.

So does all of this mean that either of the standards in the examples are fool proof? No they're not. But neither are either of those standards fool proof in a court of law. They're just the best way we have of dealing with a variety of issues.

[Quantess]

65. There are big differences in comparing ...

..facts in trying a criminal case, with "facts" supporting spiritual beliefs. Please note I am an agnostic with vague spiritual inclinations.

In trying a criminal case, there is the possiblility of falsely convicting someone, which most of us agree would be terrible. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is thankfully the standard, so that we don't have tons of innocent people wrongfully convicted. Science has given us DNA testing, and luminol, and etc.

Most scientific findings need some sort of direct impact for the study to get funded. People who give out the grants for studies always want justification. Researching a crime is justified.

Saying "I know God exists" doesn't make an impact on prractical decisions. That's why belief in god usually goes unquestioned. They might say "yeah, who does it hurt if someone believes in Jesus? Yawn. Lets study otters' parenting behavior instead."

Okay, but here's my personal feeling about human spirituality: KEEP IT TO YOURSELF! LOL. Why this need to chastise others for not sharing a religion or a lack-of?! (not you, O.P. I'm just ranting.):)

I have had mysterious, spiritual inklings, and all I can say is that I personally "know" that our life on Earth is more than we as humans can know. And if I'm wrong? So what, nobody gets wrongfully convicted.

Our current technology cannot detect "spiritual inklings".

(edit for spelling)

[cosmik debris]

70. intuition, instinct, inkling

All these have been used to explain the "leap of faith" that defies empirical realm. I believe that this is a major distinction between theists and atheists. To us atheists, intuition does not reach a high enough standard to be a factor in a decision. Theists and spiritual people tend to accept the validity of intuition as a valid factor somewhat equal to an empirical fact when making decisions.

I still don't understand, but maybe I never will.

How do you tell when intuition is false. Haven't you ever had the intuition to draw to an inside straight? or to buy a lottery ticket? Has your intuition never mis-led you? How do you decide what to disbelieve?

I am not trying to rag on you, but I am still perplexed. I have gotten a lot of answers on how people decide to believe, but very little on how people decide to disbelieve. Can you help me out on that point?

[trotsky]

69. Confirmation bias

A lot of religious concepts and ideas FEEL good, so it's very easy to have a vested interest in their being true. I mean, who doesn't want to believe that all the bad guys WILL eventually pay for their crimes? Or that we will be reunited with loved ones and live forever in paradise?

The scientists and the rationalists realize that not only is it unsound to believe in something just because you want to, it's those things we have to be most careful about accepting.

[cosmik debris]

71. I knew you would show up sooner or later

And as a well known disbeliever, I would appreciate it if you would share with me the decision making process that you used to decide what to disbelieve.

The theists seem hesitant to tell how they decide what to disbelieve and I suspect that it is because it is not readily distinguishable from their method of deciding to believe. I think you could make a good example of contrast.

I don't really care what you disbelieve, only how you came to that disbelief. How do you evaluate the arguments, and how do you test the evidence.

Thanks.

[trotsky]

72. Well, I used to be a Christian.

And I guess what it really comes down to is, I was tired of walling off the religious area of my brain from the rest of it, which was becoming analytical and rational and questioning. So that's where I might disagree with your suspicion:

The theists seem hesitant to tell how they decide what to disbelieve and I suspect that it is because it is not readily distinguishable from their method of deciding to believe.

I suspect the complete opposite, because that's the way it was for me. What I decided was "true" religiously was not based on any solid evidence but just what I had been taught, and what I wanted to believe. I think a lot of believers have one set of standards for the religious areas of their lives, but use the same set of standards as rationalists, scientists, and atheists in the rest of their lives. (Or certainly when analyzing other religions.) Any intellectually serious believer I think has to engage in a bit of these mental gymnastics.

[cosmik debris]

78. Have you torn down that wall

Have you established one plan for determining the truth or falsity of a religious proposition? Does that plan apply when you buy a used car? In the transition from theist to atheist did you discard one of the standards for belief or just modify it? Did you replace it with a standard for disbelief? What is your standard for disbelief?

In another part of this thread I stated that atheists tend to make decisions based on probability of truth rather than certainty of belief. Do you agree with that statement?

Warning: I may have more questions than you feel like answering. If you don't respond that is OK too.

[trotsky]

80. That's a pretty fair assessment.

atheists tend to make decisions based on probability of truth rather than certainty of belief

Although that's more of a scientific principle than anything special about atheism.

The only thing that really separates religious claims from others is the nature of the claim. "This car will get you 30 miles to the gallon." is a simple, straightforward claim that's believable (knowing the size of the engine, the weight of the car, etc. will confirm the claim), testable, and verifiable. "There is a god who loves you and wants to have a relationship with you." is a little stickier. Believable? I dunno, I've seen nothing to suggest such a thing is possible, let alone true. Testable? Not really - can I talk to him? Will he respond? Yes/no/maybe. Verifiable? Only when we're dead.

So in my transition from theist to atheist, it wasn't so much discarding a standard of belief but like I said, breaking down that wall and applying the same standard across the board.

[cosmik debris]

82. I understand

And I appreciate your input. Apparently I am dealing with things that you have already dealt with. THANX

[TallahasseeGrannie]

73. Great question

I am answering before reading the thread, so I might repeat someone else's concepts.

I do not believe in a higher being "beyond a shadow of a doubt." I really don't know. I definitely use the "preponderance of evidence" approach. Throughout my life, I have had experiences that were amazing enough for me to put them outside "coincidence." Some regarded illnesses, some prayer, some were about death, some are completely beyond categorizing. I started paying attention when I was about 10. I would say it took about 30 years for me to actually be able to sit down, review these events, and say: yep. There is something/somebody out there and they affect my life.

I actually can't think of anytime I use the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" except on a jury, which I have done. For example, as a teacher, if I have a preponderance of evidence that a child is stealing things from me, I deal with it. I don't wait for the higher standard. Same with used car salesmen. If I think he looks sleazy, sounds sleazy, works out of a nasty little trailer and wants his money in cash, 20's...well, I will leave the lot rather quickly.

Which standard do scientists use? Not being one, I don't know. Will they move on to the next level of the experiment on a hunch, or on a preponderance of belief? Or do they need total assurance.

[cosmik debris]

75. It sounds like

instinct, emotion, and intuition play a large role in your decision making process. Have these values ever let you down? Have you never fallen in love with the wrong guy or bought that (metaphorical) $10 Rolex?

A lot of people have told me how they decide to believe, but I am not hearing much on the decision to disbelieve. Is intuition your final arbiter or a preliminary factor in your decision to disbelieve?

I have been accused of asking snarky questions, but I assure you that I respect your opinion or I would not ask for it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

77. No, not snarky at all

Yes, I am extremely intuitive. I am also very creative, very right brained... to the point I actually have to THINK HARD before pointing right or left.

Has my intution ever let me down? Hmmm. I am thinking. I can't come up with anything that stands out. I can think of times when I did NOT follow my intuition and it bit me. Once I left a dog outside with a choker collar on, and I had never heard that you shouldn't do that, but somehow I got it in my mind that because it is not fastened tightly it would be safer. But something made me stop and think...but I did it anyway and the dog got caught up and died. It was awful. Another time I was working on furniture with steel wool and paint remover and stuffed the whole mess in a coffee can and put it in a closet. (had never heard not to do that) A few hours later I was walking past that closet and for "no reason" just opened the door. The can was smoking. Did I somehow smell it? Had I heard not to do that and only remembered it in my subconscious? I don't know. But I do think that "intuition" led me to stop that very old house from burning down.

I have a sister who is a very, very advanced alcoholic. She binge drinks. For some reason, even though I have no objective evidence, I always "know" when she falls off the wagon. It has nothing to do with phone calls or anything. I just know. I have never been wrong about that. I think I feel her emotional turmoil.

I will continue to think about when my intuition has failed me. I'm sure it has at some point but nothing is coming to mind. No real big things, like lost loves.

TG

[cosmik debris]

81. Well, I did not expect big things

But I also did not expect that your intuition would be 100% perfect. (as an atheist I live and die by my skepticism)So I have to wonder if perhaps you suffer from the selective memory of a Las Vegas gambler who always remembers the time he wins but forgets all his losses.

I apologize for challenging your credibility, but I could not find a more polite way to say that. Please don't take offense. And if you do take offense, please be kind enough to forgive me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

83. No offense taken

and the analogy is a good one because I am a very good poker player. I don't think it is about my reading people as it is patience. I fold, fold, fold and only play excellent hands. But every once in a while I throw in a bluff to keep things off balance and avoid being predictable.

I do remember that I thought OJ was innocent! And quite often my "first impression" of kids I teach turn out to be wrong.

How about this? For about two weeks after 9/11 I liked GWB and actually enjoyed seeing him on TV. I was devastated by the WTC coming down as I had watched it go up in my teens. I am from the NYC area. I wanted to be led bigtime. Now THAT was some bad intuition!

[cosmik debris]

84. So can you tell me

How you decided to disbelieve your intuition and why you believe it sometimes and not others?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

85. Time and an accumulation of

more data, AND a decrease in emotion.

I think perhaps emotion impedes intuition.

[cosmik debris]

89. I wish I understood the difference between emotion and intuition.

But we may have run this thread into the ground. Thanks.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

91. One more

Emotions are physical manifestations... oddly enough they are basically the same whether it is joy or fear (as a panic attack sufferer I learned this.) Your heart beats faster, you breathe heavier, your hands can go numb, etc. Anger, fear, elation... all bring about physical symptoms.

Intution you can have while perfectly calm. Intuition is just a sense, a "feeling" that something is either right or wrong, good or bad, etc. Perhaps most intuition is simply very astute reading of others' body language, or other things. And some might be pure hokum. Who knows?

But emotion and intuition are entirely different.

[Zhade]

101. Fantastic, challenging question.

I've tried in the past to believe, but it never took, no matter how desperately I wanted to accept as true the existence of a loving god.

I think it had a lot to do with the lack of evidence. And I say this as someone who has had "experiences" that, if described (I won't, at least here), would sound familiar to many theists.

The problem with these experiences is that I could never KNOW, as theists seem to believe, that these experiences involved or centered around gods or religious concepts. While there were feelings of awe, or appreciation of mystery, or the nagging feeling that there was Something Larger Than Humans out there, I could never find a way to connect these to anything other than self-interested suppositions that happened to agree with what I wanted to believe at the time.

For example, after 9/11 I felt I needed some sort of spiritual anchor in this crazy world, so I turned Mormon, based largely on the idea that those who'd never heard of Jesus can still be saved in that mythology. I NEEDED to 'know' this in order to approach believing in Jesus at all, and when I prayed I would 'feel' something - what, I don't know - which I would then ascribe to god and the 'truthfulness' of my chosen religion.

That didn't last long, because like the other attempts in the past, I could not lie to myself about the lack of evidence for god(s), even while experiencing feelings/emotions/insights/whatever. I knew, really knew, that there was nothing that supported my assertions that these experiences were 100% true religious experiences. There was no clear line from belief to knowledge. I knew I was kidding myself, that there was no way to be absolutely certain those experiences weren't wishful thinking, or delusion, or the desperate need to believe despite the lack of evidence.

Hence, I dropped out, and acknowledged my lack of knowledge, thus lack of belief, in any gods. Now, if I face a situation where I don't know all the facts, I refuse to assume something is true, especially if it's something I WANT to be true.

That's how this conservative christian-wannabe went from theist to atheist. In a nutshell, I knew I was kidding myself in thinking that I KNEW there was a god, and that I KNEW my experiences meant what I wanted them to mean.

Great question. Sorry to ramble!