Why do people believe -- any tips?

[Garvarn]

I just finished Believed-In Imaginings -- The Narrative Construction of Reality. Anyone got any tips on further reading regarding the psychology behind believing the unbelievable?

/Chateaubriand

[thaiboxerken]

"Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer is supposed to be really good.

[Garvarn]

Yep, Shermer is great but I sort of liked the almost "clinical" approach in Believed-In Imaginings -- sounds morbid, I know... :p

But thanks anyway!
/C

[Aussie Thinker]

I should read some of these books.. but here are a few of my personal opinions WHY people believe.

Survival Instinct.

Humans are the greatest survivors on the Planet. We are unique also in that we KNOW we will die. We can kill lions, grow food, make shelter and civilisation even kill each other to survive but we KNOW we will die eventually… How can you avoid the “final” death ???.. create an afterlife.

Religion INVARIABLY involves a chance to “continue” existence. ALL the major religions allow for humans to “live on” after death.

As the tenets of most religions have been challenged, debunked or just made plain foolish by science the WOO has crept in to replace it and the “need” for an “afterlife”. Don’t get me wrong WOO has been round for a long time too but NEVER so popular in the days of “less” religion.

Notice the most popular forms of WOO involve “talking to dead people”… if we can talk to them they live on.. which means we will too… whoo hoo !

Knowledge Gaps

Religion too is used for this. When people don’t know how something works they make up a God or a WOO to fill in the gaps.

Here is a great article on why people CONTINUE to believe against all logic and reason !

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

[Garvarn]

Thanks AT,

I agree in everything you say and the great WOO seems to fit the decline of religion in both the 19th and 20th century. Yet, the desire for an afterlife is only a slice of it, as is giving what we don't understand explanations we can at least comprehend, isn't it? Believed-In Imaginings dealt with some cases that don't appear to fit in to it -- alien abductions, RMS, and so on.

Anyway, I'll keep looking -- and I will read the link article.

Thanks again!
/C

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
I just finished Believed-In Imaginings -- The Narrative Construction of Reality. Anyone got any tips on further reading regarding the psychology behind believing the unbelievable?

/Chateaubriand

Unbelievable? What's unbelievable?? If something is "unbelievable" that seems to imply a psychological problem on your part.

[Aussie Thinker]

Chateaubriand,

Alien abductions DO fit with the “afterlife” scenario in a way.

If there exists a superior race they MAY (probably have) either defeated death or have extended life…

Either way it is ALL good… lol

II,

Your response was UNBELIEVABLE !

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unbelievable? What's unbelievable?? If something is "unbelievable" that seems to imply a psychological problem on your part.

Hi Ian,

I regard flying pigs as unbelievable, as well as aliens visiting us at night snatching women, raping them and planting "scanners" in them, satanic sects performing human sacrifices, telepathy, telekinesis, and a lot of other things. Why is that a psychological problem on my part?

/C

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Hi Ian,

I regard flying pigs as unbelievable, as well as aliens visiting us at night snatching women, raping them and planting "scanners" in them, satanic sects performing human sacrifices, telepathy, telekinesis, and a lot of other things. Why is that a psychological problem on my part?

/C

Because reality can be what it likes. If things exist which you find "unbelievable" then that's a problem on your part.

Pigs flying goes against what we understand about physical laws. Aliens visiting us is extremely unlikely because where would they come from? The nearest star apart from the Sun is 4.2 light years away. I fail to see why psi is unbelievable though.

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because reality can be what it likes. If things exist which you find "unbelievable" then that's a problem on your part.


No, reality cannot be what it likes and the things I mentioned do not exist -- although there are a lot of people who want them to exist, but that's a horse of a diffferent color. So I guess I have no psychological problem on my part.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Pigs flying goes against what we understand about physical laws. Aliens visiting us is extremely unlikely because where would they come from? The nearest star apart from the Sun is 4.2 light years away. I fail to see why psi is unbelievable though.

So, the psychological problem is really on your part...

/C

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

Pigs flying goes against what we understand about physical laws. Aliens visiting us is extremely unlikely because where would they come from? The nearest star apart from the Sun is 4.2 light years away. I fail to see why psi is unbelievable though.

Well psi encompasses a lot of things it seems but ALL of them ARE unbelievable.

What mechanism does the human brain possess to “transmit” anything ???

Secondly IF psi was in any way shape or form “real” it would have manifest itself in some easily measurable and quantifiable form by now…

It is either so pathetically inconsequential (as to be almost invisible) or it doesn’t exist !

Either way it stretches into the UNBELIEVABLE.. IN fact I am FAR more likely to believe aliens exist than psi does !

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because reality can be what it likes. If things exist which you find "unbelievable" then that's a problem on your part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, reality cannot be what it likes



:rolleyes: What compels it to operate according to your expectations?



and the things I mentioned do not exist



Oh right, so people have experienced them throughout history, across all cultures, there is a great deal of scientific evidence suggestive of their existence, yet you confidently assert they don't exist.

Ummm right. Another complete idiot.




-- although there are a lot of people who want them to exist, but that's a horse of a diffferent color. So I guess I have no psychological problem on my part.



You're a loony.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Pigs flying goes against what we understand about physical laws. Aliens visiting us is extremely unlikely because where would they come from? The nearest star apart from the Sun is 4.2 light years away. I fail to see why psi is unbelievable though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, the psychological problem is really on your part...


You have proved your idiocy. Now go away. I have had enough of your inanities.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because reality can be what it likes. ...snip...

:rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
:rolleyes:

I mean that reality need not correspond to how we feel it ought to be. Nothing to roll your eyes about with that. It is extremely clear.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Humans are the greatest survivors on the Planet.
This doesn't contend the general idea of your post, but I'd think that distinction is better fit for bugs. Take the cockroach for example. That thing has seen the birth and demise of so many creatures supposedly "superior" to it by our standards. Or better yet, take simple microbes. The more rudimentary a life form gets, the greater longevity that life form seems to have.

[Aussie Thinker]

Batman,

This doesn't contend the general idea of your post, but I'd think that distinction is better fit for bugs. Take the cockroach for example. That thing has seen the birth and demise of so many creatures supposedly "superior" to it by our standards. Or better yet, take simple microbes. The more rudimentary a life form gets, the greater longevity that life form seems to have.

Hehehe.. I guess you are right…

Perhaps I should have said best survivor of complex sophisticated animals…

What I REALLY meant was we KNOW that we will die.. I am sure an ant has no concept of its own mortality.

You could also argue that insects are GREAT survivors in total but thousands of singular species get wiped out all the time.. Man has remained pretty much unchanged for 2-300,000 years.

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
:rolleyes: What compels it to operate according to your expectations?


Reality cannot be what it likes -- reality has no desire. Its alternative is only to be non-reality and then it is no longer reality. I do not suggest that it operates according to my expectations, but that it would be able to be what it likes is not the option to that alleged suggestion. Reality simply is. Now, your line of argument -- or attitude, rather -- implies that what you're actually saying is that you want reality to be what you like, because you are not happy with how reality is or you are unable to deal with or face reality as it is.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh right, so people have experienced them throughout history, across all cultures, there is a great deal of scientific evidence suggestive of their existence, yet you confidently assert they don't exist.


It is true that people throughout history have told that they have experienced unbelievable things, but that tells us nothing about whether unbelievable things exist or not, it only tells us that people claim that they have experienced them. But I understand, in the light of what you imply above, that you wish that to constitute reality. Further, there is not a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that these unbelievable things exist -- in fact, there is no such evidence. This again shows that you are incapable of dealing with or facing reality as it is, so you create your own reality or lean on the created reality of others.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm right. Another complete idiot.


Again, you are creating your own reality -- a reality that you can handle. You have a safe and universal reaction to those who challenge the reality you have created -- they are complete idiots.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're a loony.


If that will keep you from breaking down, I will be a loony -- just for you! :p

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You have proved your idiocy. Now go away. I have had enough of your inanities.

No, I have proved no such thing. I will go away, in the sense that I will consider you to have the same intellectual capacity as a vegetable of your choice, and since you are obviously not mentally stable, I will ignore you from here and on. But I sincerely urge you to seek professional help. Reality will always be what it is and it would improve your life if you learned how to deal with it.

Take care!
/C

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
... satanic sects performing human sacrifices...
Not to quibble, but that one is within the realm of possibility. With all the nutty things people do, I would believe a well documented case of this.
Another factor leading to weird beliefs ( mentioned by Shermer) is the confusion of correlation with causality. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Further, confirmation bias serves to support superstitious beliefs when people only look for such support and avoid attempts at falsification.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unbelievable? What's unbelievable?? If something is "unbelievable" that seems to imply a psychological problem on your part. Oh?? Then you have that problem, too, since you just stated that you find unbelievable .. unbelievable.

Hans ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I mean that reality need not correspond to how we feel it ought to be. Nothing to roll your eyes about with that. It is extremely clear. Then you should have said that, instead of reality can be what it likes Since that is something entirely different.

Hans

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Not to quibble, but that one is within the realm of possibility. With all the nutty things people do, I would believe a well documented case of this.


Hi Jeff,

Of course, I would do too. But that such sects would operate to the extent reported by therapists in the 80s, is not in the realm of possibility, and that even some sects like that operated in the 80s is unbelievable, since no factual evidence whatsoever supported the claims.

But I get your point, and I agree: people do nutty things.... :p

/C

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I mean that reality need not correspond to how we feel it ought to be. Nothing to roll your eyes about with that. It is extremely clear.

So, you have made your position clear, except for one thing: reality doesn't need anything. It is you who need reality to correspond to what you feel it ought to be, since you are not equipped to deal with it as it is.

Again, take care!
/C

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I mean that reality need not correspond to how we feel it ought to be. Nothing to roll your eyes about with that. It is extremely clear. [/B]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Then you should have said that, instead of
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reality can be what it likes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since that is something entirely different.

Hans



Exactly. The difference is extremely clear. You should have noticed that.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your initial sentence was a declaration that reality is an entity, possibly a self-counsient one, and capable of changing itself according to its own will.

Such declarations and lines of reasoning would fit very well at cheap self-help books, posts from Franko or "words of wisdom" from certain esoteric persons.

You are not backing this up are you?

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
I just finished Believed-In Imaginings -- The Narrative Construction of Reality. Anyone got any tips on further reading regarding the psychology behind believing the unbelievable?

It would probably be better to say "regarding the psychology behind believing things that probably aren't true, in my opinion".

What's 'unbelievable' or not is completely subjective, isn't it?

Your real question is why some people believe things that you feel are definitely not true, right? And whether they do this because they see the world very differently, or they have emotional issues/needs, or because they are nuts. Or perhaps they are actually sane and you are nuts, etc.

That's what you're actually interested in, yeah?

I do know what you're referring to. Some people believe things that make me despair.

Cheers.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Humphreys
It would probably be better to say "regarding the psychology behind believing things that probably aren't true, in my opinion".

What's 'unbelievable' or not is completely subjective, isn't it?

Your real question is why some people believe things that you feel are definitely not true, right? And whether they do this because they see the world very differently, or they have emotional issues/needs, or because they are nuts. Or perhaps they are actually sane and you are nuts, etc.

That's what you're actually interested in, yeah?

I do know what you're referring to. Some people believe things that make me despair.

Cheers.

Yes, I am in complete agreement with this post. I think basically this is what the original poster meant to say.

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by Humphreys
It would probably be better to say "regarding the psychology behind believing things that probably aren't true, in my opinion".


No, because there are things that definitely are not true.

Originally posted by Humphreys
What's 'unbelievable' or not is completely subjective, isn't it?


No, because there are things that definitely are not true.

Originally posted by Humphreys
Your real question is why some people believe things that you feel are definitely not true, right? And whether they do this because they see the world very differently, or they have emotional issues/needs, or because they are nuts. Or perhaps they are actually sane and you are nuts, etc.


No, it is why some people believe things that have no verification in reality.

Originally posted by Humphreys
I do know what you're referring to. Some people believe things that make me despair.

Cheers.

I agree! ;)

/C

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
No, because there are things that definitely are not true.

What tells you this is the case?

It is your brain?

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
No, it is why some people believe things that have no verification in reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no verification in reality'. I suppose you mean that you personally haven't experienced any of these things, or that your brain is telling you they have to be false because they seem ridiculous, or go against other certain things your brain tells you are true.

Cheers.

[thaiboxerken]

Instead of using the word "unbelievable", maybe we should use the word "absurd" instead.

Chateaubriand, it's probably not a good idea to try and have a discussion with IIan, as he is not reasonable.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Instead of using the word "unbelievable", maybe we should use the word "absurd" instead.

Right, because luckily what's considered absurd or not is exactly the same for every sane person in the Universe.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I mean that reality need not correspond to how we feel it ought to be. Nothing to roll your eyes about with that. It is extremely clear.

It seems to me that you ought to recite this first sentence to yourself over and over until it sinks in. Generally, we have all learned what constitutes reality through experience and accept it for what it present itself as. You are one of the one's who insist "there must be something more".

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Humphreys
Right, because luckily what's considered absurd or not is exactly the same for every sane person in the Universe.
Except for the Existentialists.
Life is absurd.
Existentialialism is part of life.
Ergo, Existentialism is absurd.
Quod erat demonstratum.

[Esther]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Esther,

I assume you are a christian, born of christian parents, who may bring you up in the christian culture, just as they were brought up by their parents with the christian culture. Now, assume you were born instead by locals in a muslim culture, a hindu culture or whatever - betcha' you wouldn't be raised a christian then.

Hello Anders.

No, I am not a Christian but I get your point. Religion is part of our culture indeed but never before in our western societies has native culture been challenged so much. People get educated, they travel to other countries, media allow them to see where religious fundamentalism leads and how many troubles it causes , science is expanding our knowledge to areas we couldn't even imagine before and yet people still believe. So, your explanation doesn't seem satisfying. Yes, we are influenced by our culture but we have many opportunities to challenge our culture the smashing majority of people though choose not to when it comes to religion. So it must be something more and something more deep here.

My point is, religion is forced down kids' throats by their parents and, in some cases, teachers and others within the cummunity or culture - they are not really given a choice in the matter; "Hey, kid, wanna believe in a gawd or somethin - choose any". So religion is perpetuated by culture - but the again if you are threatened often enough by your similarly afflicted peers that you won't go to paradise or you will go to hell if you choose to stop for a minute, apply common sense and drop the religious, suppressing bull.

Without having the slightest intent to flame you, allow me to remark that the comment above is really simplistic for the reasons I showed above.

Religion is an easy escape from hardship and unjustness in society "why me? - Gawd's will - gawd works in mysterious ways", rather than actually doing something about the problems, however difficult that task. Again you over-simplify. Humans' problems are complicated. People would love to take the pill that would cure their illnesses, they would love to look their physicians in their eyes and get good news instead of praying to a ghost and yet some of them have to do it because they do not have an alternative. Do not overlook arrogantly the needs of people as if you observe them through the lense of your microscope.

I think Mao tse Tung was a criminal, but he did get one thing right: Religion is the opium of the people (and then he more or less created a religious cult around his own person - but that's another topic). And like Betrand Russel said (or words to the effect of) - claimg that believers are happier than atheists is like claiming that drunks are happier than the sober. Marx and Russels were socialists that their ideas threw to misery millions of people in eastern europe. They forced atheism by substituting God with the Communist Party. Not a very succesful example in my opinion.

have taken a long, hard look at religious belief. And dumped it, lock, stock and barrel. And I am the happier for it. I don't need fear of gawd to get me to do the decent thing, I don't need the futile concept of an afterlife standing in the way of enjoying this one. I don't need logic or science to answer questions if logic and science don't have answers - and I don't need leaps of faith to satify my need for a made-up, false answer when the answer currently is: I just don't know. If it's important to me, I'll look for the answer - if I can se by logic and experience that it cannot be answered, then I'll just leave it at that. Sure. But the smashing majority doesn't feel like that. If the majority believes one thing doesn't mean that it's a right thing but it certainly says something and it doesn't say that the majority is foolish or needs to be locked in to a mental institution as some people in this forum suggest.

BTW, science cannot be arrogant - science is a method for learning about the world, it's not a person or a stance. When people "find science arrogant" it's typically because these people are scientifically illeterate, crave instant gratification or simply don't like the answers science does provide to some questions. Yes you are right. Science cannot be arrogant. Those who have substituted their belief to God with a belief in Science are those that they can become arrogant and therefore funny, to put it mildly.