Survey of reasons to believe (Introduction)
by David Turell , Monday, December 08, 2014, 20:37 (3772 days ago)
Survey: Scientific theory and/or no faith-As followers of this site know in the 1980's, I changed from agnostic to believing, based on study of particle physics/ cosmology advances, and a study of Darwin's theory of evolution. I wish to ask on a scale of one to ten how important each factor is in your thinking (rating of ten most important). 1)	Belief in cause and effect, requiring a first cause to explain why is there anything 2)	The Big Bang origin as an apparent creation. 3)	Fine tuning of this universe and Earth to allow for life. 4)	Origin of life 5)	The complexity of living biochemistry 6)	Complexity of the genome 7)	The Cambrian Explosion vs. Darwinian evolution 8)	Humans different in degree or kind 9)	Near to Death Episodes 10)	Natures very complex wonders and lifestyles -My personal scoring is 1 &2 are 10. 3 is eight, since we are here the conditions have to be correct. 4,5,6,7 & 8 are 10's. 9 is a 7-8, since the experience is very personal, but many are veridical (have verification). 10 is a 7-8, as life's genome appears amazingly to be very inventive with God's help or on its own. My score then is 93, allowing for 7.5 for 9 & 10. And that number takes me to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.-What is your number? And regardless of the number, does this group of factors lead you to belief or not, and why?
Survey of reasons to believe
by David Turell , Monday, December 08, 2014, 23:56 (3772 days ago) @ David Turell
As a clarification of my intent, importance of a factor can be viewed as either positive or negative in leading to a particular belief system. Importance of a factor to an agnostic which leads him to non-belief or inability to believe is just as important as a factor that leads to belief as it has in my case. I'm simply trying to explore and perhaps quantify which points are most important in the decision-making.
Survey of reasons to believe
by dhw, Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 19:20 (3770 days ago) @ David Turell
Survey: Scientific theory and/or no faith-DAVID: I wish to ask on a scale of one to ten how important each factor is in your thinking (rating of ten most important)[...] As a clarification of my intent, importance of a factor can be viewed as either positive or negative in leading to a particular belief system. Importance of a factor to an agnostic which leads him to non-belief or inability to believe is just as important as a factor that leads to belief as it has in my case. I'm simply trying to explore and perhaps quantify which points are most important in the decision-making.-Thank you for providing us with a novel approach to our great quest. I'll go through the items in turn, and try to quantify their importance in relation to my non-belief and non-disbelief, which I prefer to call open-mindedness.-1) Belief in cause and effect, requiring a first cause to explain why is there anything. I'm a firm believer in there being a first cause, but whether that cause is mindful or mindless is the key question I cannot even begin to answer. In terms of its influence on my thinking, the score is therefore 0.-2) The Big Bang origin as an apparent creation. I am not convinced by the BB theory, but even if it's true, the question still remains what started it off. I disbelieve in the something from nothing theory. We go back to the first question, and to 0 points.-3) Fine tuning of this universe and Earth to allow for life. This leaves open the question of whether there might be other types of life than our own. Of course we don't know. In conjunction with other factors it has to play a role, but for me not a major one. 2.5 points.-4) Origin of life 5) The complexity of living biochemistry 6) Complexity of the genome I believe in common descent, and so I would bracket these three together, since they all entail inexplicable complexity, the potential for which must have been present from the beginning. 10 points shared for importance.-7) The Cambrian Explosion vs. Darwinian evolution A major problem for Darwinian gradualism, but not for my concept of an inventive, intelligent mechanism within the cell. Not to be ignored, however. 2.5 points.-8) Humans different in degree or kind Although I accept that our level of consciousness and intelligence is far greater than that of our fellow animals, we are still animals, and I believe we evolved from animals. 0 points, but see No. 9.-9) Near to Death Episodes I would rename this category the problem of consciousness in all its manifestations, including psychic experiences. Fundamental. 10 points.-10) Nature's very complex wonders and lifestyles Explicable in terms of an inventive intelligence, but where this came from goes back to the origin of life. 5 points.-There are at least two items missing from the list: 1) there is no objective evidence of a god being present. We have a number of unsolved mysteries, and we have people with a subjective “feeling” of a presence. The many different religions could indicate a “convergent” core of truth, or a “convergent” desire to solve the insoluble, or to conquer death, or to have faith that we are not alone and that something is greater than ourselves, cares for us, will console us for our suffering etc. Non-presence = 10 points. 2) The sheer illogicality of the argument that human and animal intelligence cannot have evolved without design, whereas divine intelligence just somehow happens to be there. If one can believe in an inexplicable divine intelligence, one can believe in an inexplicable animal (including human) intelligence, and in inexplicable panpsychist evolution. 10 points because ultimately ALL the hypotheses require faith.-These points therefore indicate the importance of each item for my open-mindedness - not a score for or against God. However, quite astonishingly this new table brings me a score of 50. Would you believe/disbelieve it?
Survey of reasons to believe
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 20:17 (3770 days ago) @ dhw
Survey: Scientific theory and/or no faith- > dhw: There are at least two items missing from the list: > 1) there is no objective evidence of a god being present. We have a number of unsolved mysteries, and we have people with a subjective “feeling” of a presence. The many different religions could indicate a “convergent” core of truth, or a “convergent” desire to solve the insoluble, or to conquer death, or to have faith that we are not alone and that something is greater than ourselves, cares for us, will console us for our suffering etc. Non-presence = 10 points. > > 2) The sheer illogicality of the argument that human and animal intelligence cannot have evolved without design, whereas divine intelligence just somehow happens to be there. If one can believe in an inexplicable divine intelligence, one can believe in an inexplicable animal (including human) intelligence, and in inexplicable panpsychist evolution. 10 points because ultimately ALL the hypotheses require faith.-Good additional factors. Your point two leaves all logic behind, because any suggestion of yours or mine requires a faith in the approach used. 10 points agreed! > > dhw: These points therefore indicate the importance of each item for my open-mindedness - not a score for or against God. However, quite astonishingly this new table brings me a score of 50. Would you believe/disbelieve it?-50/50 puts you on the pickets, so it is a well constructed survey.
Survey of reasons to believe: belief vs. non-belief
by David Turell , Monday, March 31, 2025, 19:07 (6 days ago) @ David Turell
Atheism does not win:
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...
"New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that atheists in some of the world's most secular countries show an intuitive preference for religious belief over atheism.
"The study, by academics at Brunel University of London, Royal Holloway, University of London, and other institutions, was conducted across eight countries with low levels of religion, Canada, China, Czechia, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the U.K., and Vietnam. It provides compelling cross-cultural experimental evidence that pro-religious intuitions happen even in societies that have become largely secular.
"Using a simple task based on the "Knobe effect," the researchers examined how people infer intentionality in circumstances where a person's actions knowingly caused individuals to either become religious believers or atheists.
"The Knobe effect is a well-established psychological phenomenon demonstrating that people are more likely to attribute intentionality to an action with harmful (versus helpful) consequences.
"Across all countries, participants were more likely to judge that an action knowingly causing a shift toward atheism was intentional, suggesting people intuitively see religious belief as preferable.
"Notably, even self-identified atheists exhibited this.
"Dr. Will Gervais, from Brunel University of London, who led the study, said, "Even in societies where explicit religious belief has rapidly declined, the idea that belief, in itself is good, appears to persist at an intuitive level.
"'Belief might be on the decline in many places, but belief in the goodness of belief lives on."
"Professor Ryan McKay from the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London, who contributed to the study, added, "This research suggests that the legacy of religious influence endures in ways we might not expect.
"'Even in highly secular environments, people—including nonbelievers—seem to harbor a preference for belief over atheism."
"The study offers new insights into the evolving landscape of religious and secular belief, challenging the assumption that cultural shifts away from religion necessarily erase pro-religious intuitions.
"Professor McKay concluded, "Our work suggests that secularization may be a more complex process than previously thought. While explicit religious belief may be fading, underlying intuitions favoring belief could persist for generations.'"
Comment: is belief some how intuitively built-in? Or is it that more good is expected from believers? On the other hand man-made institutions can be overburden with rules and practices enough to drive some away.
Survey of reasons to believe: belief vs. non-belief
by dhw, Tuesday, April 01, 2025, 16:21 (5 days ago) @ David Turell
Belief versus non-belief
DAVID: Atheism does not win:
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...
A load of nonsense, but I feel obliged to respond.
"New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that atheists in some of the world's most secular countries show an intuitive preference for religious belief over atheism.”
I have absolutely no idea how someone who believes there is no such being as God can intuitively prefer to believe that there is a God. How many thousands of atheists did the researchers psychoanalyse? How many such "confessions" have they listed?
"[The study] provides compelling cross-cultural experimental evidence that pro-religious intuitions happen even in societies that have become largely secular.”
“Compelling evidence” could be found just by googling whether there are any churches/synagogues/mosques/ religious institutions in this or that country. How does this prove that atheists intuitively prefer to believe in God rather than disbelieve in God?
"Across all countries, participants were more likely to judge that an action knowingly causing a shift toward atheism was intentional, suggesting people intuitively see religious belief as preferable.”
No example given to clarify this. If Richard Dawkins intentionally wrote a book called The God Delusion, does that mean he intuitively prefers to believe in God?
QUOTE: "'Belief might be on the decline in many places, but belief in the goodness of belief lives on."
That doesn’t mean that people who believe there is no God prefer to believe that there is a God! But if it helps some people to believe in God, then even an atheist can say that’s good.
QUOTE: "'Even in highly secular environments, people—including nonbelievers—seem to harbor a preference for belief over atheism."
I wonder how someone who disbelieves in God can “seem to” believe in God? This is all nebulous nonsense!
"The study offers new insights [..] challenging the assumption that cultural shifts away from religion necessarily erase pro-religious intuitions.”
That is no proof that atheists prefer to believe in God! Here in the UK, lots of churches have closed down or been put to other uses. The decline does not prove that atheists believe intuitively in God.
"Professor McKay concluded: While explicit religious belief may be fading, underlying intuitions favoring belief could persist for generations.'"
Of course. A conclusion which has nothing whatsoever to do with atheists who believe intuitively in God!
DAVID: is belief some how intuitively built-in? Or is it that more good is expected from believers? On the other hand man-made institutions can be overburden with rules and practices enough to drive some away.
Your questions are fair enough. I’m inclined to believe that “intuition” is often simply a reflection of whatever culture we were born into, though some of us might instinctively rebel, and cultures also change in time. Your final remark is horribly relevant nowadays, when we read about the appalling behaviour and the massive cover-ups which make a mockery of any expectations concerning the goodness of religious institutions.
Survey of reasons to believe: belief vs. non-belief
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 01, 2025, 21:19 (5 days ago) @ dhw
Belief versus non-belief
DAVID: Atheism does not win:
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...
dhw: A load of nonsense, but I feel obliged to respond.
"New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that atheists in some of the world's most secular countries show an intuitive preference for religious belief over atheism.”
dhw: I have absolutely no idea how someone who believes there is no such being as God can intuitively prefer to believe that there is a God. How many thousands of atheists did the researchers psychoanalyse? How many such "confessions" have they listed?
"[The study] provides compelling cross-cultural experimental evidence that pro-religious intuitions happen even in societies that have become largely secular.”dhw: “Compelling evidence” could be found just by googling whether there are any churches/synagogues/mosques/ religious institutions in this or that country. How does this prove that atheists intuitively prefer to believe in God rather than disbelieve in God?
"Across all countries, participants were more likely to judge that an action knowingly causing a shift toward atheism was intentional, suggesting people intuitively see religious belief as preferable.”
dhw: No example given to clarify this. If Richard Dawkins intentionally wrote a book called The God Delusion, does that mean he intuitively prefers to believe in God?
QUOTE: "'Belief might be on the decline in many places, but belief in the goodness of belief lives on."
dhw: That doesn’t mean that people who believe there is no God prefer to believe that there is a God! But if it helps some people to believe in God, then even an atheist can say that’s good.
QUOTE: "'Even in highly secular environments, people—including nonbelievers—seem to harbor a preference for belief over atheism."
dhw: I wonder how someone who disbelieves in God can “seem to” believe in God? This is all nebulous nonsense!
"The study offers new insights [..] challenging the assumption that cultural shifts away from religion necessarily erase pro-religious intuitions.”
dhw: That is no proof that atheists prefer to believe in God! Here in the UK, lots of churches have closed down or been put to other uses. The decline does not prove that atheists believe intuitively in God.
"Professor McKay concluded: While explicit religious belief may be fading, underlying intuitions favoring belief could persist for generations.'"
dhw: Of course. A conclusion which has nothing whatsoever to do with atheists who believe intuitively in God!
DAVID: is belief some how intuitively built-in? Or is it that more good is expected from believers? On the other hand man-made institutions can be overburden with rules and practices enough to drive some away.
dhw: Your questions are fair enough. I’m inclined to believe that “intuition” is often simply a reflection of whatever culture we were born into, though some of us might instinctively rebel, and cultures also change in time. Your final remark is horribly relevant nowadays, when we read about the appalling behaviour and the massive cover-ups which make a mockery of any expectations concerning the goodness of religious institutions.
Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are felt
to avoid evil and are safer to trust.