Jamie_L

I've read some interesting claims on this board by theists relating to the fact that so many human beings believe in some form of god/religion. The posters say that this is supportive of the existence of god(s) but that it is not simply an appeal to numbers. I've seen two forms of this argument:

1) Since belief in god(s) is the norm for human existence, the burden of proof should be on non-believers. Because so many people believe, the claim that this belief is irrational (the atheist position) is the extraordinary claim, not the other way around.

2) Humans obviously have an inate belief in god which is proof that we are supposed to believe in god. Thus, god exists. This seems to be the heart of Metacrock and Gundar's debate (though I confess I have a hard time getting through their long, sometimes tangential posts - my apologies to them).

These arguments don't impress me. The fact that a particular belief is the norm really shouldn't matter. To use a favorite around here lately, belief in Santa may be the norm among young children in Western societies. That does not make the Santa myth any less fantastic or more credible.

It seems to me that it's just as logical to assume that humans developed supernatural beliefs over time because they provided some benefit. Perhaps it made larger societies hold together better, or gave a culture a competetive edge over another culture, or it made individuals better able to deal with stress. But none of these benefits necessarily requires or suggests truth to the beliefs themselves.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Jamie

cloudyphiz

it seems to me that belief in 'god' is to be expected for any pretechnical people. so far as we know, humans are the only animals that have the ability to comprehend our own mortality. making up something like an afterlife tends to make this burden easier to deal with. also, when such people see thunder, drought, eclipses, etc. their only conclusion is to assume that some sort of sky god is pulling the strings.

science is the tool that allows us to pull back these layers of misunderstanding; and the more we learn the less we must ascribe to a supreme being. maybe it's like an onion, or maybe there's no limit to what we'll learn. but, what we see is a pattern of understandable, natural events. from this pattern we can make certain assumptions, and it's clear that the room for the sort of god that religions espouse to exist in is constantly shrinking.

how anyone could see this as proof of the existance of their 'god' is beyond me.

-gary

bd-from-kg

Jamie_L :

As it happens, this very question was discussed recently in the <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000415" target="_blank">Evidentiary Arguments</a> thread. What follows is a slight adaptation of what I said there.

The fact that the great majority of people believe X really is good evidence that X is true. For example, many people believe that Columbus is the capital of Ohio whereas few believe that Akron is. And it turns out that Columbus really is the capital of Ohio and Akron isn’t. Similarly, the great majority of people believe that an object dropped from an airplane will generally fall to the ground, that if a baby isn’t fed it will soon die, that eating veggies is healthy, and that using crack cocaine is a bad idea. Oddly enough, all of these widespread beliefs are true. In general, for any proposition X imagine two cases: (1) you have no evidence regarding it except that the great majority of people believe it; (2) you have no evidence regarding it except that almost everyone disbelieves it. Only a fool would suppose that he was not far more justified in believing X in the first case than in the second. Which is to say that widespread belief has strong evidentiary value. The fact that many false beliefs are widely held shows only that it is not an infallible indicator of truth.

We can express this point formally as follows. Let F be “the great majority of people believe H”. Obviously P(F|H) &gt; P(F|~H) (i.e., widespread beliefs have a positive correlation with “reality” ) , and therefore P(H|F) &gt; P(H). That is, F constitutes evidence for H.

So the argument that the fact [if true] that most people believe in God is evidence that God exists cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the existence of this belief is not “really” evidence. I think it can be dismissed on other grounds, though.

Since no one has the time to examine the evidence regarding every question, all of us take the “short cut” of accepting the popular opinion about lots of things. Thus, I believe that a Mercedes is likely to be a better-built car than a Hyundai, that it’s safer to fly in jumbo jets than in small private planes, that it’s wise not to buy anything from telemarketers, and lots of other things, because most people think so (in fact, because I have the impression that most people think so), and not because I’ve studied the evidence. There’s nothing wrong with this; it’s perfectly rational. But ultimately, to be justified, a belief must be based on evidence other than the fact that most people subscribe to it. If popular belief were to be accepted by everyone as an adequate reason for believing in something, false popular beliefs would persist indefinitely. Thus for any popular belief, it’s essential that some people examine it to determine whether it has any underlying evidentiary support. A person who does this is called a “skeptic”. Thus when a belief is examined from a skeptical standpoint the fact that it is widespread is automatically out of court. Now when a question is “put in play”, it is usually taken for granted that the idea is to discuss it from a skeptical point of view. In this context the state of public opinion may not be taken into consideration. If you are seriously examining whether lower speed limits save lives, you don’t accept the argument that most people think they do; you look at actual accident statistics. For the same reason, while it’s perfectly rational for an unreflective person to believe in God because most people do, in a serious discussion of whether God exists the popular opinion that He does is irrelevant.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Foxhole Atheist

I believe that Humans have an innate spirituality about them that derives from our sentience (more specifically the physiological functioning of the brain). However, this spirituality transcends into a belief in a god as it is presented in a formal religion.

IMHO, the reason for this transcendence/belief in a god/religion is because all religions offer immortality; for who would not wish for this to be true? I believe without the ‘eternal life’ being offered, there may well be that a majority of our species would be vastly more skeptical of religion in general.

DarkBronzePlant

Therein lies the difference, I believe, between most of "us" and most of "them." "They" are perfectly content to go along with the norm, to believe what they've been taught, to go along with the rest of the sheep (their word, not mine) unless any overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the norm is false. "We" tend to take the opposite approach... don't believe anything until there is evidence to demonstrate its accuracy.

ImGod

LadyShea posted this quote in RRP under the topic Good Quotation. I thought it was appropriate for the discussion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.-Mahatma Ghandi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am far from a philosophical debater (being an analytical engineer), however I agree with what bd-from-kg presents,

"Thus for any popular belief, it’s essential that some people examine it to determine whether it has any underlying evidentiary support"

Eventually I need evidence beyond "the majority says it's the truth" before I'll believe something.

Mageth

The fact that the great majority of people believe X really is good evidence that X is true.

Hmm, lots of people believe in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, witchcraft (spells, charms, etc.), astrology, ESP, telekinesis, Nostradamus, UFOs, "the law of averages," OJ's innocence and that poinsettias are very toxic. Also in evolution. I had no idea that believing in these things is evidence that they are true. I always assumed one had to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

pug846

bd, did you mean to say here:

that: The fact that the great majority of people believe X is good rational to hold the belief that X is true?

bgponder

Hi Y'all,

Even the cornbread man knows that belief is no evidence whatever of the truth or falsity of a proposition.

Moreover, simple professed belief is not even evidence of belief! Many Americans will say that they believe in JCGod, yet many of those who say that they believe do not attend church regularly, have not read the Bible, etc.; ergo they are "practical" atheists.

Professed belief is only evidence that the one professing is professing, and even demonstrations of belief are only evidence of the possibility that among those involved in the demonstration, there are those who actually believe. Some of them could be hypocrites...


Peace, cornbread Barry

Justus

I fully agree with some minor semantic quibbles*

1- I would subsitute DESCENDS

2- MOST

3- The Carrot / Stick : Pleasure / Pain aspects

4 - The vast majority would practice instead of profess the underlaying ideals most religions teach.

Sorry one other

(b) add the prefix MIS-