How does one come to believe something?

[Joshua260]

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.

Some people are more obsessed with finding reasons to avoid answering OPs.

 

[Chany]

Some people are more obsessed with finding reasons to avoid answering OPs.

I answered the OP.

 

[Chany]

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?

I am disagreeing with your examples, as they are not basic beliefs. The propositions I provided are meant to show that statements like "His name is Steve" are derived beliefs, not basic. They are derived from something, namely, an accepted belief that said person is trustworthy and currently not lying to you. Basic beliefs are usually ones that are incorrigible, though, honestly, there is probably a fallibilist foundationalism that works without incorrigible basic beliefs. However, there is another point I think you are missing. An accepted basic belief must also be epistemically justified; it cannot be just any proposition that is not derived from something, but one we are justified in holding. Merely assuming something to be the case, without a good justification, leads to problems, as you cannot actually make knowledge claims. And since the purpose of this thread relates to knowledge claims, it does serve as a good point to lack actual basic beliefs. Given the nature of things like "logical arguments" in the premise, I assume you do not want to include unjustified assumptions some like to call "basic beliefs"

There is a difference between accepting a proposition and believing a proposition. Beliefs, at least to the extent in which we come to have them, are involuntary. I could not really switch my belief via willpower. What we do have voluntary control over is our decision making in terms of how we can interact with possible evidence, like choosing to do research. We, therefore, have indirect control over our beliefs. The fact remains, however, that we can only be moved by evidence to form belief.

However, there is voluntary accepting a proposition. By this, I mean we hold the proposition as true when we perform actions and when we are considering premises for discussions. This is different than merely believing a proposition, though this fact is often overlooked because the two are often connected to one another. To use the name example, consider a Person X who we are going to meet. We ask our friend who is taking us to go see Person X to tell us X's name. Our friend informs us that his actual first name is embarrassing- so embarrassing, in fact, that Person X does not even acknowledge that as his name in most social settings. Therefore, our friend tells us we should call Person X "Steve". Therefore, we have the proposition "Person X's name is Steve." I do not actually believe this proposition; in fact, I know it is false. However, I accept the proposition. When I act, I hold the proposition as true. I will call Person X Steve. I will refer to Person X as Steve to other people who do not know him. I will not ask about Person X's real name, because I accept the proposition that says Steve is his real name.

Currently as listed, p1 would appear passable on the surface. However, I find it lacking. First, it does not account for the psychology of the person coloring the outcome of their beliefs. Someone with a massive amount of investment in a particular belief, for example, is more likely to ignore evidence that would lead to the rejection of that belief. Pretty much, we can read a psychology book and see all the biases we carry into a discussion.

Second, when I refer to "evidence", I refer to the totality of a person's experience with a subject matter. It is not just what we would call legal evidence, or basic belief, but rather what they have experienced personally in there day to day lives, anecdotal evidence, incomplete or erroneous arguments, the type of people who make the arguments, the amount of experts who reach a particular conclusion, etc. Note that this list does not require all of these things as a necessity. For example, though we count formal arguments as evidence, a person's unique evidence may not include any.

Therefore, I would reform p1 into "A person forms a belief from the evidence they have experienced, after the evidence first filters through the person's psychological bias and quirks."

This leads me to my main complaint: p1 is worded in a way to make most Christians' belief epistemically justified, even though a person's evidence need not include the things you have brought up. I would say a good portion of people do not actually examine logical arguments, especially anything beyond "word of mouth" arguments. Not everyone's evidence follows a rigorous standard when they gather facts. This is the problem with your argument as it stands. A person's belief in a god does not require logical arguments, nor physical evidence, nor even basic beliefs. It can just as easily be based upon a scenario like this:

Steve hears the proposition "the god of Christianity exists". Steve intuition pulls him to believe this proposition. Furthermore, whenever Steve experiences something related to the proposition, he gets a large amount of positive feelings and emotions. For example, whenever he hears the word "Bible", he becomes much more relaxed and gains a more positive outlook. Based upon his psychology, this is enough for Steve to come to believe the proposition "the god of Christianity exists". His total evidence (intuition, emotion) has moved him to believe the proposition.

 

[Joshua260]

Therefore, I would reform p1 into "A person forms a belief from the evidence they have experienced, after the evidence first filters through the person's psychological bias and quirks".

So you actually agreed with the original p1...that a person comes to believe something only through evidence. Interesting, and thanks for your response.

 

[paulm50]

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

So those who sinned the most, are top of the list?

You make no sense.

 

[paulm50]

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

Like the tooth fairy, bogey man, Santa Claus.

 

[paulm50]

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

Victor reveals a lot of knowledge. Selling "Eternal life" or a guaranteed place in various heavens has been a thriving business from before Christianity was invented.

 

[Albion]

So those who sinned the most, are top of the list?

You make no sense.

I believe what you mean to say is that you didn't 'get' it. Had you already been conversant with the whole story, the answer that was given about the purpose for the Law would have made sense to you.

 

[Ken-1122]

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?

It is not a sound argument. The argument goes wrong with #1. I believe most of what we believe we accept without evaluating evidence; nobody has time for that. I am an atheist and I believed my birthdate based strictly on what my parents told me. I did no research, I didn't need a birth certificate, I believed what my parents told me because I trusted them. As a matter of fact, most of what my parents told me I believed because because I trusted them.
Now of course, getting my birthday right is not a life/death situation, or a situation that could cause me great discomfort throughout life; if it were perhaps I would do a bit more research. But that's just me, I am sure many would be content with taking their parents word for it.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

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 believe this modification of #1 makes the argument more sound. I think it should also be added that often evaluating evidence will often dispel "properly basic beliefs".

Ken

 

[paulm50]

I believe what you mean to say is that you didn't 'get' it. Had you already been conversant with the whole story, the answer that was given about the purpose for the Law would have made sense to you.

I see sarcasm is something you're not conversant with.

The purpose of a law, it to keep a society from disintegrating. The ways that would happen when the Jews were slave in Babylon, or surviving in a Bronze culture have no meaning today.

What was accepted then, isn't now. What was dangerous then isn't dangerous now. Refer to the laws on food, slavery, women for a better understanding.

 

[paulm50]

It is not a sound argument. The argument goes wrong with #1. I believe most of what we believe we accept without evaluating evidence; nobody has time for that. I am an atheist and I believed my birthdate based strictly on what my parents told me. I did no research, I didn't need a birth certificate, I believed what my parents told me because I trusted them. As a matter of fact, most of what my parents told me I believed because because I trusted them.
Now of course, getting my birthday right is not a life/death situation, or a situation that could cause me great discomfort throughout life; if it were perhaps I would do a bit more research. But that's just me, I am sure many would be content with taking their parents word for it.

Ken

We all trust people who know more than we do about a subject. I trust people when the tell me about DNA, of the millions of different species that lived before Man arrived. The Moon mission, the war of Independence. I don't need evidence. The difference is if I do want to look for it, it's there in piles.

The difference with the bible is there's contradictory evidence with far more weight than what Bronze and Roman Age men knew. We know a lot more about Paul, than we know about Christ. All we know about him is he lived, the rest comes from biased sources preaching a message.

 

[Albion]

I see sarcasm is something you're not conversant with.

Oh, I'm conversant with it, but it's not always so easy to pick up from the written word. That's why they invented 'smilies.'

The purpose of a law, it to keep a society from disintegrating.

That would be a political/governmental law or regulation you're describing.

The ways that would happen when the Jews were slave in Babylon, or surviving in a Bronze culture have no meaning today.

What was accepted then, isn't now.

At this point, I think it's appropriate to refer again to what I said about knowing the whole story. It's essential to this discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

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

Point one is flat out wrong.

Some people believe things because they have a strong psychological need to believe something and even when the evidence points the other way. In some people, the psyche will override the evidence.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201104/the-two-kinds-belief

 

[bhsmte]

We all trust people who know more than we do about a subject. I trust people when the tell me about DNA, of the millions of different species that lived before Man arrived. The Moon mission, the war of Independence. I don't need evidence. The difference is if I do want to look for it, it's there in piles.

The difference with the bible is there's contradictory evidence with far more weight than what Bronze and Roman Age men knew. We know a lot more about Paul, than we know about Christ. All we know about him is he lived, the rest comes from biased sources preaching a message.

Some people trust others with more knowledge and training on a subject, not all people.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

That seems to be a common theme with this OP.

 

[paulm50]

We were given a brain to use in order to defend ourselves. Therefore we must question everything.

The danger with accepting without questioning leave one open to scoundrels, rogues and abusers. Be is a monk who abuses a child, a Mullah who says a place is reserved in Heaven for suicide bombers or faith healers. They use the bible for their purpose not gods.

Bible laws are listed here. Old Testament. Many have no place in today's society.

New Testament. They missed a few like Ephesians 6:5 about servants. And 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 about women. Most are good and I know a lot of Christians who don't think they're right. Thou shalt not kill being top of that list.

And of course the old myth of sex being a sin. There's no way god would think that, make it so pleasurable, give women a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and the ability to multi [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and absolutely necessary to maintain the species. And able to take multiple wives and partners. Still it's one most Christians don't agree to in reality.

Some people trust others with more knowledge and training on a subject, not all people.

Absolutely. I take the word of scientists at face value, but not a salesman.

 

[Albion]

We were given a brain to use in order to defend ourselves. Therefore we must question everything.

The danger with accepting without questioning leave one open to scoundrels, rogues and abusers. Be is a monk who abuses a child, a Mullah who says a place is reserved in Heaven for suicide bombers or faith healers. They use the bible for their purpose not gods.

That's hardly the Bible's fault.

Bible laws are listed here. Old Testament. Many have no place in today's society.

"The Law" is a reference to the Decalogue, and all of it has a place in today's society.

And of course the old myth of sex being a sin.

Unless you have the Shakers in mind--and they have less than a dozen members at last report--I don't know of any Christian who thinks sex is a sin.


.

 

[bhsmte]

We were given a brain to use in order to defend ourselves. Therefore we must question everything.

The danger with accepting without questioning leave one open to scoundrels, rogues and abusers. Be is a monk who abuses a child, a Mullah who says a place is reserved in Heaven for suicide bombers or faith healers. They use the bible for their purpose not gods.

Bible laws are listed here. Old Testament. Many have no place in today's society.

New Testament. They missed a few like Ephesians 6:5 about servants. And 1 Corinthians 14:34/35 about women. Most are good and I know a lot of Christians who don't think they're right. Thou shalt not kill being top of that list.

And of course the old myth of sex being a sin. There's no way god would think that, make it so pleasurable, give women a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and the ability to multi [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and absolutely necessary to maintain the species. And able to take multiple wives and partners. Still it's one most Christians don't agree to in reality.


Absolutely. I take the word of scientists at face value, but not a salesman.

The thing about the word of a scientist is; you can check his word with the available objective evidence. It may take some work and education to understand the evidence, but there it is for all to see.

 

[JGG]

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.

No. Premise one is still incomplete. People come to believe because of all that stuff, and a whole bunch of other stuff. For instance, emotional response. Also, don't misinterpret an assertion with evidence for that assertion.