How does one come to believe something?

[JGG]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Premise one is false. The rest of the argument falls apart.

 

[Chany]

Premise 1 is false if we restrict the definition of "evidence" to pure arguments. Evidence, defined strictly, does play a part in the formation of one's personal beliefs. However, it is not the only part; there are other factors as well.

The above premise is only true if we define evidence as broadly as possible to include pretty much all life experience. We are moved by the total evidence (arguments, the fact that people disagree, life experience, subtle ques in one's environment, etc.) to form a belief. This does not make a person rational, however- that depends upon the actions the person can control that we can use to indirectly influence our belief by examining new evidence, listening to the opposition, setting time aside to think about things, etc.

 

[paulm50]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Belief is a choice, many people refuse to believe in mountains of evaluated evidence.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.

Some do, fundamental religious believed do not. This applies to many religions.

2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.

Some do, fundamental religious believe. This applies to many religions. Some take the message as stories and believe the morals are the best way to live in a society. Something that blind faith ignores. With suicide bombers, burning people at the stake, and ignoring child abuse to keep the organisation safe.

3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

What evidence is there god exists and Bronze Age Men and those who claim to have met him or Jesus, or Mary, or know what god wants. Have a clue about him? This would be like taking the evidence of people who claim to have had contact with aliens as the truth.

 

[paulm50]

The Ten Commandments contain excellent ways to live one's life. Does that mean people who break them are good or bad?

Then tell me why David, Joshua, and many more are revered. When they were killing, stealing other people's lands, possessions, etc.

I live my life closer to the Ten Commandments than many people the bible praises. And this to me is what a Christian is.

 

[Kirsten]

The Ten Commandments contain excellent ways to live one's life. Does that mean people who break them are good or bad?

Then tell me why David, Joshua, and many more are revered. When they were killing, stealing other people's lands, possessions, etc.

I live my life closer to the Ten Commandments than many people the bible praises. And this to me is what a Christian is.

The purpose of the law is to show us we are unable to follow it. It exposes sin.

 

[Joshua260]

Thanks to all for responding. I agree with all of you who believe premise 1 is faulty and that the argument is unsound.

I thought I'd reference Wikipedia to define what is meant by "evidence".

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

You can get more details from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things. I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality. I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief".

I also think that we can come to believe something through sound logical argument. I'm going to assume that no one here would dispute that.

So I'd like to modify p1 from the original found in the OP and see if you think it fixes the argument.

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

But if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.

 

[Kirsten]

Thanks to all for responding. I agree with all of you who believe premise 1 is faulty and that the argument is unsound.

I thought I'd reference Wikipedia to define what is meant by "evidence".

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

You can get more details from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things. I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality. I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief".

I also think that we can come to believe something through sound logical argument. I'm going to assume that no one here would dispute that.

So I'd like to modify p1 from the original found in the OP and see if you think it fixes the argument.

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

But if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.

I'd say you are closer to the truth, but you are forgetting the most important thing. God gives people faith. God reveals Himself to people. It is spiritual.

 

[Joshua260]

I'd say you are closer to the truth, but you are forgetting the most important thing. God gives people faith. God reveals Himself to people. It is spiritual.

Thank you my Christian friend. I think I took that into account when I included a "properly basic belief" in p1. I believe that just as a person reveals to me a truth about himself (such as "Hi, my name is Steve") and I accept it as a "properly basic belief", so does the Holy Spirit reveal truths to Christians (spiritually, as you point out)(such as "Jesus is the son of God") and we accept those as "properly basic beliefs" also. Both are persons revealing information to other persons.

 

[Davian]

Thanks to all for responding. I agree with all of you who believe premise 1 is faulty and that the argument is unsound.

I thought I'd reference Wikipedia to define what is meant by "evidence".

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."

You can get more details from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things.

My perceptions are not infallible. Are yours?

I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality.

Not even when you are unable to convey to others this "reality" that you perceive?

I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief".

I also think that we can come to believe something through sound logical argument. I'm going to assume that no one here would dispute that.

Is that how you came to your god belief?

So I'd like to modify p1 from the original found in the OP and see if you think it fixes the argument.

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

But if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.

You still have not shown that P1 must occur with P2 to get to 3.

Do you feel that these young individuals are being given a chance to evaluate the evidence and logical arguments for gods, or lack thereof?

 

[Winken]

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

3. Cannot be a "therefore." Those who came to believe are Christians because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (not as a group, but in each individual life.) No one "decides" to become a Christian. Upon conviction of sin, one confesses publicly, when possible, that one believes that Jesus was born, lived, ministered, was crucified and came out of that tomb as payment in full for one's sins. "Evaluation" and "logic" are secular terms, having nothing to do with the Spirituality of that moment.

 

[Cearbhall]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence.

I disagree with this. Children accept plenty of things without evidence.

 

[Winken]

I know what to share not based upon science and secular evidence but based upon His Amazing Grace, which includes the moment-by-moment promise of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Davian]

I know what to share not based upon science and secular evidence but based upon His Amazing Grace, which includes the moment-by-moment promise of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

“Selling eternal life is an unbeatable business, with no customers ever asking for their money back after the goods are not delivered.” ― Victor J. Stenger

 

[bhsmte]

Off topic.

It would be best then, to not make statements, if you don't want people to address them. You make a claim about someone said this or that and it is open season.

 

[Winken]

“Selling eternal life is an unbeatable business, with no customers ever asking for their money back after the goods are not delivered.” ― Victor J. Stenger

Victor reveals the absence of knowing what he is talking about.

 

[Davian]

Victor reveals the absence of knowing what he is talking about.

How is his statement not accurate?

 

[Joshua260]

It would be best then, to not make statements, if you don't want people to address them. You make a claim about someone said this or that and it is open season.

still off topic. I did not ask anyone to address my intro, only the syllogism. Does this mean you will refuse to address it?

 

[Chany]

Thank you my Christian friend. I think I took that into account when I included a "properly basic belief" in p1. I believe that just as a person reveals to me a truth about himself (such as "Hi, my name is Steve") and I accept it as a "properly basic belief", so does the Holy Spirit reveal truths to Christians (spiritually, as you point out)(such as "Jesus is the son of God") and we accept those as "properly basic beliefs" also. Both are persons revealing information to other persons.

Please define "properly basic belief".

For my part, I define "basic belief" as a belief that we are epistemically justified in holding as true and that is not derived from another belief. When believe (there is a difference between accepting a proposition and believing a proposition, but that's an argument for another day) that someone's name is the one they tell me it, I am deriving my belief from another belief "He is a trustworthy source of information about himself; he does not really lie about himself". Another belief might be, if I never met the man before, "People in a normal public setting do not have a reason to lie about their names; I have no reason to doubt the man given the circumstances". This is important because it really does affect who the course of the conversation will go.

 

[Chany]

still off topic. I did not ask anyone to address my intro, only the syllogism. Does this mean you will refuse to address it?

It is rather poor form to accuse someone of something, then refuse to back up your accusation. Most people do not like conversing with others who make accusations, then spend more time refusing to provide evidence for their accusations than they would if they simply backed up their claim when first requested.

 

[Joshua260]

Please define "properly basic belief".

"As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things. I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality. I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief"".

For my part, I define "basic belief" as a belief that we are epistemically justified in holding as true and that is not derived from another belief. When believe (there is a difference between accepting a proposition and believing a proposition, but that's an argument for another day) that someone's name is the one they tell me it, I am deriving my belief from another belief "He is a trustworthy source of information about himself; he does not really lie about himself". Another belief might be, if I never met the man before, "People in a normal public setting do not have a reason to lie about their names; I have no reason to doubt the man given the circumstances". This is important because it really does affect who the course of the conversation will go.

I disagree with your definition here because you are using some kind of evidence (your experience that he is trustworthy, or that people don't usually lie about their names) to evaluate whether one is telling the truth. Properly basic beliefs are those which are accepted without any evidence provided. See my examples above.

But did you see post #26? Would you car to share how you would alter p1 in order to make the argument sound?