Why Do You Believe?

[BluesMan]

I often wonder if belief is based on genetic predisposition.

 

I was raised in a church going household where the beliefs of my Father, Mother, Sister, Grandma, and Grandpa (oh, you get the idea) have never been a question.

 

However, when I was 18 I met my biological father and was amazed that we are both very skeptical.

I would call myself a Taoist Christian by teaching/philosophy but have no tuck with current traditional interpretations of the teaching of Christ. I see the teachings as parallel to Taoism and not that he is anymore god than you or I.

So most call me an atheist.

[InfiniteNow]

While one's genetics will predispose them to certain traits, one's belief and/or system of beliefs is learned/taught.

[Zythryn]

I often wonder if belief is based on genetic predisposition.

 

There may be something genetic involved in spirituality. I would agree not in specific beliefs though.

 

I read something about a part of the brain that was very active during times of 'spiritual experiences' and deep meditation. This same area of the brain seemed to be heavily stimulated during deep meditation, prayer and self described spiritual insight.

 

I believe one of the sources was Scientific American sometime in the last 6 months, I will see if I can find which one and post links.

 

Questor, as to the wind being analogous to ID, I would disagree. You can feel the wind, you can measure its effect, basically the wind gives empirical evidence. ID on the other hand has no empirical evidence, nothing that can be measured.

 

However, I think that is a bit off topic:)

[Freddy]

While one's genetics will predispose them to certain traits, one's belief and/or system of beliefs is learned/taught.

 

Yes indeed! Brainwashing 101.

[HappytheStripper]

While one's genetics will predispose them to certain traits, one's belief and/or system of beliefs is learned/taught.

 

Yup thats nature vs nuture or .. genetic inheritence vs environmental factors ..

 

Genetic inheritence shows characteristic traits .. while envirnmental factors include personality traits ..

 

Top words InfiniteNow .. and by the way .. whoever posted this thread .. I never believe anything til I know it for myself .. for a belief holds no actual weight it is therefore only theory until such time it is experienced and known .. never proven ..

 

Ashley

[questor]

Zyth, of course the wind gives empirical evidence, that is the point! when you look around you and see the way the universe operates, does that say to you there is no evidence of causality? do you think the universe was an accident? do you think the forces that hold atoms together are all accidents? are gravity, light, energy, consciousness and life all accidents? are all the physical phenomena and the system that make this incredible universe stable, and the way the components down to the invisible sub-atomic particles perform their part of the dance of being, accidental? to me, there are too many accidents here to make good sense. i would think that observance would tell you that that most if not all things we observe have a cause. what is the cause of the universe being the way it is?

[sanctus]

questor, it seems that we agree even if you didn't get exactly my point: you do not choose to believe, but if you find evidence then it is this evidence which makes you believe. You see it's not you who decide to start to believe but the evidence. Now, I agree there might be a part of choice in the interpretation of the evidence: you see i don't see ID in the "perfection" of the universe and you do.

If I could choose to believe I would because it can be comforting being convinced that there is a higher power...

 

About your question of what is the cause of the universe being what it is: an alternative to ID can be found in the multiverse theories (if remember well also in brane-theories), where it is believed that there were aroung 10^123 universes created all with different constants, so at least one of all this universes can have the right physical constants with probability tending to 1. But, I agree these are only theories not yet submitted to experience...but they give you a, to me, more plausible explication than ID.

[questor]

Sanctus, you may be the only person that understands what i have been saying. it seems to me that the string theory, brane theory and all the others are attempts to explain away holes in mathematical predictions. it is just as fanciful for me to follow that road as to believe in ID. there have been years of effort and miles of calculations and observations to avoid consideration of ID.

once we know the truth, i will follow the truth, whatever it may be.

[BluesMan]

Deleted - Does not further discussion

[ughaibu]

No evidence supporting the idea of intelligent design has been presented. All that has been presented is some facts and a conclusion, the act of making such a presentation doesn't transform the facts into evidence. Questor may find some facts suggestive but without a connection between the facts and the conclusion, that doesn't constitute evidence. For example, the fact that 'the cat is white' is not evidence for the conclusion that the cat is black, neither is it evidence for the conclusion that the cat was born in Siberia, nor for the conclusion that the Earth's rotation is caused by lemmings on a treadmill in Atlantis, nor any other of an infinite number of available fantasies. Intelligent design is an unfounded belief, there is nothing scientific about it.

[Zythryn]

Zyth, of course the wind gives empirical evidence, that is the point!

 

Then you agree with me that ID is nonsensical??

While we have empirical evidence of wind, we have no such evidence of an inteligent design.

 

However, again, this is off topic, why DO people believe is the question you posed, not why DON'T you believe in something else.

[questor]

Ugh, be sure that your gray matter is functioning. i truly can't believe you read my posts #23 and #25, and write such a silly post. let me try to make this clear for you:

1. no one knows how the universe began

2. evidence is in the eye of the beholder-it may be pertinent, it may not

3. evidence does not necessarily prove an issue, but it suggests a possibility

4. all i have ever said is...i see no evidence for random creation for existence of the universe. i do see evidence of ID which meets my criteria,

if it doesn't satisfy yours, go find your own.

[ughaibu]

Questor: As this thread is about why people believe, please have a go at explaining why you believe in intelligent design. You have no evidence and you have no argument, a person of your intellectual capacity must be aware of that. Why, on such an unimportant matter (you have never shown any relevance for your conclusion), do you hold on to an illogical belief in the face of all the responses demonstrating your idea's unsatisfactory nature, that you have received?

[questor]

Ugh, this will be my last correspondence with you on this subject. here is my position:

1. this post asks the question why a person believes in God. i personally

do not believe in Gods as promulgated by man.

2. i believe in a creator who/which designed the cosmos.

3. i arrived at this belief, because i believe in causality, and i believe numerous natural phenomenae show evidence of ID.

4. evidence means events which can be observed or measured.

 

Evidence of ID.

1. existence of the universe. it either always existed, was created, or

occurred as an accident. i cannot believe it was an accident, and if the BB

occurred, there must have been a cause. the existence of the universe

alone, if created is ample evidence of ID. there is more evidence...

2. orbits--the planets orbit, electrons orbit. all without outside force being exerted to create and maintain the orbit. is this an accident?

3. order--the universe exhibits order. it does not fly apart. this does not point to accidental creation.

4. gravity, electromagnetism, time ,light, strong and weak forces indicate planning, not accidental occurrences.

5. intelligence. there is intelligence in DNA, so we know intelligence exists in the universe. this does not speak of an accident. our body atoms are like

those from other planets and traveling asteroids. we are part of the dust

of space.

this beautiful order of the cosmos does not tell me that everything is accidental, it tells me that we are here by ID.

[InfiniteNow]

...Evidence of ID...

Just attempt to remain aware of the subtle distinction between evidence and interpretation.

 

 

Cheers. :doh:

[sanctus]

InfiniteNow, I tend to agree with you. It's part of what I wanted to say in my last post...

But, I think that is what questor says, he interprets the facts listed in post 31 as a proof of ID, so to him the what we see as interpretation becomes evidence.

Actually is there really a difference between interpretation and evidence? I mean for example to me it is evident that no war is justified, but sadly there are other interpretations which are vidences for those people...

[ughaibu]

Questor: I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm genuinely interested by your behaviour, so please dont get upset.

In posts 1 and 2 you ask why a person would believe in a "supreme being", your supposed creator, mentioned in post 31, clearly fits this description and is a necessary part of your idea, therefore your position demands that you believe in a supreme being, so, my question to you is fully within the scope of this thread.

In post 29 you have pretty much agreed that rather than constituting evidence, the facts are suggestive, the facts suggest to you, personally and individually, a certain "possibility". Also in post 29 you point out that nobody knows the origin of the universe, I think we can go further and say that nobody even knows what the universe is or even if it has any existence in the sense that we use the term. However, human beings have a commonality of perception and ways of thinking that allow them to discuss what they call the universe, in terms of mutually comprehensible basic concepts, and to extrapolate from those concepts. Intelligent design doesn't fit within that framework of common perception, and as you have been unable to defend you idea against arguments presented by Eclogite, Erasmus00, Pyrotex and others, intelligent design does not, at present, have any logical foundation. So far this amounts to intelligent design being 'an illogical possibility requiring an unknown/imaginary supreme being', what I'm asking, in post 30, isn't 'how did you arrive at your idea?', I'm asking why you believe in something that even you admit is just a possibility? And why do you devote so many posts to reminding your readers that you believe in an illogical possibility requiring an unknown/imaginary supreme being? You appear to have an obsession with the fact that you believe, almost as if you're in love with the experience of belief. I find it fascinating, particularly as intelligent design is so unimportant, whether the idea is correct or not makes no difference in the world.