People would rather believe than know

[bilby]

One can't prove atheism.

But one can disprove most theism. Certainly all the popular stuff.

It's fairly easy to show that any kind of mind-body dualism is incompatible with some of the best tested and most useful scientific theories; Either there's no afterlife, or Quantum Field Theory is not just wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong (it's not; we checked. Built a really huge hadron collider under Switzerland and everything).

That fact alone falsifies most religions.

Similar falsification is fairly easy to show that no gods are routinely and regularly interacting with humans; Prayer cannot possibly work unless almost all of our modern technology doesn't work the way its designers think it works at all - so the implication is that if prayers are heard by the gods, then the only reason that your mom can hear you when you call her on your cellphone, and your GPS doesn't get wildly lost, is that the developers of these devices stumbled across designs that work despite all of physics being completely different from what they think it is. And they not only succeeded despite being wildly wrong; They did so without noticing anything unusual, strange, or inconsistent in the way reality operates.

The odds that, given our experience with modern technology, gods also exist, are so astronomically low that only the most extreme of pedants would bother to note that they aren't zero. It makes more sense to believe that you are going to win the lottery every week for the next century, than to believe that there's an after, or a god that can hear and answer prayers.

Now, it's true that some fringe religious beliefs can not be falsified in this way. The Deist creator god, who made the universe and then buggered off to leave it's inhabitants to get on with it, is much less easy to falsify. But then, if such a god existed billions of years ago, but will never be seen again, the question becomes not "does he exist?", but "why should we care whether or not he exists?".

Science doesn't do proof. But it does falsification very well indeed.

Sorry, theists, psychics, astrologers, and other woo mongers, but while you were busy exalting in the fact that it's impossible to prove atheism, science was busy disproving all the theism.

I can't prove that no gods exist; But I can prove that all the gods people have so far described to me, don't exist.

This fact goes a long way toward explaining why it's so difficult to get believers to say anything concrete about their gods. Even the simplest claims render your god concepts falsifiable; And so far, that's been all that's been needed.

Religion still exists because the sum of human knowledge regarding reality is a closed book to most humans - we know there are no gods, in the same way that we know how to put a man on the Moon - that is to say, most people don't have a clue where to even begin, because most people don't know shit.

 

[lostone]

I have heard the argument made that existence is not a property of God, because God exists outside of space and time, so providing evidence demonstrating his existence is not a problem. I must admit that argument flummoxes me and I have no rebuttal, except to note that Sherlock Holmes also exists outside of space and time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

“People would rather believe than know.”

― Edward O. Wilson

And that goes for everybody, not just the religious.

In the field of religion, not quite. There are grumpy theists posing as atheists who are willfully ignoring theism for whatever reason. But the trouble with believe than know for atheism is that there is no standard of knowing. One can't prove atheism. It is just there are so many ridiculous religions out there, that it'd make more sense to outcast those ridiculous superstitions like we did their understanding of weather and medicine. Personally, would I rather have eternal life? Well yeah! But wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

The trouble with theism is it discounts most everyone else's vision of theism. This incompatibility is an issue they don't like to discuss or they might use the "it is all the same god" card.

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

 

[bilby]

“People would rather believe than know.”

― Edward O. Wilson

And that goes for everybody, not just the religious.

In the field of religion, not quite. There are grumpy theists posing as atheists who are willfully ignoring theism for whatever reason. But the trouble with believe than know for atheism is that there is no standard of knowing. One can't prove atheism. It is just there are so many ridiculous religions out there, that it'd make more sense to outcast those ridiculous superstitions like we did their understanding of weather and medicine. Personally, would I rather have eternal life? Well yeah! But wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

The trouble with theism is it discounts most everyone else's vision of theism. This incompatibility is an issue they don't like to discuss or they might use the "it is all the same god" card.

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

So what? I've known Catholics who thought they were Napoleon, but I don't expect other Catholics to find excuses for this bizarre belief.

 

[Elixir]

I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

Can you give an example of these beliefs, and the facts that those beliefs cause them to reject?
Not accusing you of mendacity, just curious about how that works in the eyes of a theist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“People would rather believe than know.”

― Edward O. Wilson

And that goes for everybody, not just the religious.

In the field of religion, not quite. There are grumpy theists posing as atheists who are willfully ignoring theism for whatever reason. But the trouble with believe than know for atheism is that there is no standard of knowing. One can't prove atheism. It is just there are so many ridiculous religions out there, that it'd make more sense to outcast those ridiculous superstitions like we did their understanding of weather and medicine. Personally, would I rather have eternal life? Well yeah! But wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

The trouble with theism is it discounts most everyone else's vision of theism. This incompatibility is an issue they don't like to discuss or they might use the "it is all the same god" card.

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

I spoke specifically of religion in my post and there is no evidence to support creationism.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

Can you give an example of these beliefs, and the facts that those beliefs cause them to reject?
Not accusing you of mendacity, just curious about how that works in the eyes of a theist.

Two atheistic beliefs I've encountered that are clung to by atheists despite evidence to the contrary are these:

1. Suicide and euthanasia are rights and are good.
2. The faith of the religious has no logic or evidence to support it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

I spoke specifically of religion in my post and there is no evidence to support creationism.

The creationists do have evidence to support their belief in creation. It's arguably flimsy evidence, but it's still evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

“People would rather believe than know.”

This slogan actually doesn't make sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Try talking geology to a young-earth creationist who believes in the flood.

That doesn't mean the creationist would rather believe than know. He claims to know that "the flood" happened and that the earth is young. Even if his claim is false, that doesn't mean he prefers belief over knowledge. He prefers knowledge, and he claims that's what he has, whereas your claim is that he does not have knowledge of this.

Just because he is wrong and does not have the knowledge he wants to have doesn't prove that he doesn't want that knowledge. People can be mistaken in thinking they know something they don't really know, but this doesn't mean they prefer not to know. Even if they stick "stubbornly" to their belief and claim they know it's true, that doesn't prove they don't want to know the truth. It only means they're making a mistake. You can't claim that everyone who makes a mistake doesn't want to know the truth. More likely is that they are caught up in their mistake, certain that it's the truth even though it's not, and their sincere preference or choice is to know the truth and to not believe anything false.

The only claim you can make is that he is wrong in claiming to have knowledge of this. So you're claiming he does not really have what he claims, i.e., knowledge -- which is what he wants, He wants knowledge about the earth's age, and his only mistake is that he thinks he has this knowledge when he really does not.

No one prefers to be mistaken or to lack knowledge.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They literally say they don't want to talk geology. They ignore the evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

I spoke specifically of religion in my post and there is no evidence to support creationism.

The creationists do have evidence to support their belief in creation. It's arguably flimsy evidence, but it's still evidence.

Shit, is there a Unknown Soldier dictionary I need to purchase so can better understand the personalized definitions you use for words?

 

[Copernicus]

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

I spoke specifically of religion in my post and there is no evidence to support creationism.

The creationists do have evidence to support their belief in creation. It's arguably flimsy evidence, but it's still evidence.

Shit, is there a Unknown Soldier dictionary I need to purchase so can better understand the personalized definitions you use for words?

If you had said "no credible evidence", then he would have had to come up with a different quibble.

 

[rousseau]

Dawkins' book is about belief in gods, not community, although Dawkins himself devotes a considerable portion of his life to a social movement that promotes atheist lifestyles. Belief and community aren't mutually exclusive, but the purpose of a religious community is to provide support other than belief maintenance. Belief (or rejection of a popular belief) is the glue that holds the community together, but the religion itself functions primarily as a coping mechanism. People use it to get genuine relief from suffering. Atheist communities don't usually work as well at helping people to cope with suffering, so it doesn't surprise me that people are more reluctant to make big sacrifices to keep them going. In fact, atheism tends to carry a social stigma, whereas conventional religions are considered socially acceptable and even admirable belief systems. Hence, atheist communities are harder to form and maintain. Many of my atheist friends belong to Universalist Unitarian communities for that reason. Those communities tend to provide community support to atheists without promoting belief in atheism.

It seems that you're saying that people would rather know than believe. In other words they want to know they have friends in a community who can help them. The attendant beliefs are optional.

Not quite. What I really said was that community seems to be a greater motivating factor than either belief or knowledge when it comes to religion. Religious communities function as coping mechanisms more than a plausible explanations of how reality works. Shared religious convictions are the social glue that hold the community together.

There's a lot of talk about atheism not being a belief, but here we are, sharing in community over our common lack of belief.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

I spoke specifically of religion in my post and there is no evidence to support creationism.

The creationists do have evidence to support their belief in creation. It's arguably flimsy evidence, but it's still evidence.

Shit, is there a Unknown Soldier dictionary I need to purchase so can better understand the personalized definitions you use for words?

If you had said "no credible evidence", then he would have had to come up with a different quibble.

And then you would all need to post more cuss words in response.

 

[steve_bank]

When one defines the terms one uses, then one is always right by definition.

That is what Christian theology does. Alondg with Nazi propaganda. Modern Russian, North Korean, and Chinese propaganda.

It is easier for the masses in those systems to believe without knowing.

It is easier for Trump followers to believe and feel good instead of thinking it all through. Same with political parties. It is easier and less demanding to simply echo political party phrases than understand in depth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

They [creationist heretics] literally say they don't want to talk geology.

So they "don't want to talk" about something. OK, that's often true of whoever, no matter what they believe. And so you could say they don't want to know about that subject, or don't want to know the truth or facts about it. This may be true, about everyone at one time or another -- and in some cases they should be more willing "to talk" something they tend to run away from.

The clue is that "they don't want to talk" about it. This is also expressed in the sentiment:
"You can't handle the truth!"
Which seems to be a judgment call, rather than honest description of someone.

Or similarly:

They ignore the evidence.

Which is about the same thing except maybe this is an impartial observation. Similar to "they don't want to talk" about it, meaning they refuse to talk about it. (Of course this condemnation of them/"they" assumes we all agree on what "the evidence" is. THE evidence outside of which there is no other evidence. Yet maybe not everyone agrees on what "the evidence" is outside of which there is no other evidence.)

It's true that this describes many believers in one cause or another (including atheism, evolution, etc. good guys and bad guys both). Maybe even most? including those whose cause may be mostly correct.


Instead of psychologizing, it's better to
keep bombarding them with the facts.

I.e., the facts they don't want to hear (or rather, facts they're not hearing) -- just keep repeating these over and over.

That "they don't want to talk" about it (or rather, refuse to talk about it), or that "they ignore" the facts is a better way to describe them than saying they don't want to know the truth, or prefer to believe something doubtful or untrue or unlikely rather than recognizing or knowing the facts. This description that they refuse "to talk" or they "ignore" the evidence is an objective description of their behavior, which we can observe and verify, whereas saying they don't want to know, or they want false beliefs, is a kind of name-calling, ascribing a negative psychology to them -- "psychologizing" -- pretending to see their inner thoughts and motives and character flaws, and then using this to dismiss them as obviously wrong. I.e., obvious to those who really really and truly know the truth. Right.

This condemning someone, by psychologizing, attributing a character flaw to them, is then used as a similar weapon also to "ignore the evidence" those ones might have and to not "talk" to them and try to persuade them away from a belief we're all supposed to agree is wrong, and even condemn as off limits to be debated.

So, "they don't want to know" the truth, or prefer belief to knowledge, is an invalid psychologizing argument.

Whereas, they refuse "to talk" about it or "they ignore the evidence" or facts is a proper argument against the other side.

Just tell us what they're doing wrong, or why their belief is false, without pretending to know what they want or what their character flaw is. Even if you have a psychology degree, you're not qualified to psycho-analyze someone and diagnose their problem only based on their having a belief you're offended by.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They [creationist heretics] literally say they don't want to talk geology.

So they "don't want to talk" about something. OK, that's often true of whoever, no matter what they believe.

No, as in literally I've had that argument with YEC'ers and Das Flood.

The clue is that "they don't want to talk" about it. This is also expressed in the sentiment: "You can't handle the truth!"
Which seems to be a judgment call, rather than honest description of someone.

No words, should have sent a poet.

Or similarly:

They ignore the evidence.

Which is about the same thing except maybe this is an impartial observation. Similar to "they don't want to talk" about it, meaning they refuse to talk about it. (Of course this condemnation of them/"they" assumes we all agree on what "the evidence" is. THE evidence outside of which there is no other evidence. Yet maybe not everyone agrees on what "the evidence" is outside of which there is no other evidence.)

It's true that this describes many believers in one cause or another (including atheism, evolution, etc. good guys and bad guys both). Maybe even most? including those whose cause may be mostly correct.


Instead of psychologizing, it's better to
keep bombarding them with the facts.

I.e., the facts they don't want to hear -- just keep repeating these over and over.

That "they don't want to talk" about it, or that "they ignore" the facts is a better way to describe them than saying they don't want to know the truth, or prefer to believe something doubtful or untrue or unlikely rather than recognizing or knowing the facts. This description that they refuse "to talk" or they "ignore" the evidence is an objective description of their behavior, which we can observe and verify, whereas saying they don't want to know, or they want false beliefs, is a kind of name-calling, ascribing a negative psychology to them -- "psychologizing" -- pretending to see their inner thoughts and motives and character flaws, and then using this to dismiss them as obviously wrong. I.e., obvious to those who really really and truly know the truth. Right.

This condemning someone, by psychologizing, attributing a character flaw to them, is then used as a way to "ignore the evidence" they might have and to not "talk" to them and try to persuade them away from a belief we're all supposed to agree is wrong, and even condemn as off limits to be debated.

So, "they don't want to know" the truth, or prefer belief to knowledge is an invalid psychologizing argument.

Whereas, they refuse "to talk" about it or "they ignore the evidence" or facts is a proper argument against the other side.

Funny, a person psychoanalyzing a post, instead of discussing it,... complaining about people psychoanalyzing people.

 

[Learner]

When one defines the terms one uses, then one is always right by definition.

This should apply to both atheists and theists as according to your previous post, doing the same things.

That is what Christian theology does. Alondg with Nazi propaganda. Modern Russian, North Korean, and Chinese propaganda.

Saying these groups "go alongside" etc.. gives the false impression that all the groups mentioned in the above are somehow in agreement, as if "unified" by a common ideology or cause. Most of the above groups, if not all, would oppose doctrinal Christianity. The individual ideologies are in confliction with each other.

It is easier for the masses in those systems to believe without knowing.

It is easier for Trump followers to believe and feel good instead of thinking it all through. Same with political parties. It is easier and less demanding to simply echo political party phrases than understand in depth.

Politically, I could accept that.

 

[steve_bank]

When one defines the terms one uses, then one is always right by definition.

This should apply to both atheists and theists as according to your previous post, doing the same things.

That is what Christian theology does. Alondg with Nazi propaganda. Modern Russian, North Korean, and Chinese propaganda.

Saying these groups "go alongside" etc.. gives the false impression that all the groups mentioned in the above are somehow in agreement, as if "unified" by a common ideology or cause. Most of the above groups, if not all, would oppose doctrinal Christianity. The individual ideologies are in confliction with each other.

It is easier for the masses in those systems to believe without knowing.

It is easier for Trump followers to believe and feel good instead of thinking it all through. Same with political parties. It is easier and less demanding to simply echo political party phrases than understand in depth.

Politically, I could accept that.

Again there is no 'atheism'. Atheism is a Christian boogeyman, the enemy.There are atrheists who write about atheists vs theists. And again as I see it all soical groups are the same, Christians think there are unique.

When wirting a fornal paper in college one defines terms explicitly and the particular meaning. Same in science or math or engineering where a term may have multiple meanings.

Christian theology especially the RCC has a defined vaocabulary and all confclusions and menings work together without any ambiguity The trinity, heaven, soul, sin, a satte of grace are all definitions. Theology based on the defintions is always true and never ambiguous. That is what theologians do, invent theology,


I think all social groups are the same from teem peer groups to relgion and government. At the sate lvel i is impossible for all to understand all of it, it is natural to believe in a structure like a patry than understand politics.

That is the way, IMO, that Christianity works. Followers don't understand they learn the cliches and sayings and repeat them. They learn interlocking biblical quotes from other Christians who learned it from somebody else. Belief without understanding.

 

[bilby]

I've known atheists who prefer belief over knowledge rejecting any facts presented to them that serves to falsify their belief(s).

Can you give an example of these beliefs, and the facts that those beliefs cause them to reject?
Not accusing you of mendacity, just curious about how that works in the eyes of a theist.

Two atheistic beliefs I've encountered that are clung to by atheists despite evidence to the contrary are these:

1. Suicide and euthanasia are rights and are good.
2. The faith of the religious has no logic or evidence to support it.

The first belief is orthogonal to the atheist-theist axis; It's something that is completely unrelated to theism (or its absence), and it's only connection with atheism in this context seems to be that you are irrationally disparaging of both - that is, you are making the common error of thinking that if someone disagrees with you about anything, they must automatically disagree with you about everything.

It's actually quite possible for you to be wrong about a lot of different things for a lot of different and unrelated reasons.

Number two is a statement of fact, regarding any religious person who accepts the definition of faith given by Hebrews 11:1, or any other similar definition. It's not necessarily true of all religious faith, but it is demonstrably true of some, and remains true no matter how passionately you believe that it isn't (this being the primary characteristic of reality).