Popularity of Belief--evidence for belief?

[Copernicus]

Arguments from popularity are logical fallacies. Just because everyone holds a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is correct. But I am intrigued by the idea that we may be biologically wired to ground belief in popularity. Children are so naive and trusting of adult authority. They tend to accept everything they are told, and they must learn to grow out of their gullibility. This makes perfect sense in that children have to assimilate a vast amount of information as quickly as possible. Acceptance and trust are quicker than skepticism and critical analysis.

As we reach adulthood, we become more and more skeptical. We rebel against authority and challenge it. Gullibility becomes a liability and can even be a fatal one, if we meet the wrong people. Critical thinking seems to become a more valuable strategy for survival than trust and acceptance as we age, but we can never completely abandon trust.

Although the arc of life may move us from trust to skepticism, children are never completely trusting and adults never completely skeptical. Although I am advanced in years, I still trust what a great many people tell me. I am certainly inclined to believe historians about historical events and physicists about the properties of matter even though I have never personally verified most of the things I believe. I tend not to believe what other experts tell me--for example, experts in religious doctrine. I trust that they know about their own doctrine, but I still do not trust their claims about the nature and existence of deities. In my life, I have gone from strong acceptance of Christian beliefs in childhood to strong rejection of them in adulthood. It seems to me that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God.

So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Arguments from popularity are logical fallacies. Just because everyone holds a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is correct. But I am intrigued by the idea that we may be biologically wired to ground belief in popularity. Children are so naive and trusting of adult authority. They tend to accept everything they are told, and they must learn to grow out of their gullibility. This makes perfect sense in that children have to assimilate a vast amount of information as quickly as possible. Acceptance and trust are quicker than skepticism and critical analysis.

As we reach adulthood, we become more and more skeptical. We rebel against authority and challenge it. Gullibility becomes a liability and can even be a fatal one, if we meet the wrong people. Critical thinking seems to become a more valuable strategy for survival than trust and acceptance as we age, but we can never completely abandon trust.

Although the arc of life may move us from trust to skepticism, children are never completely trusting and adults never completely skeptical. Although I am advanced in years, I still trust what a great many people tell me. I am certainly inclined to believe historians about historical events and physicists about the properties of matter even though I have never personally verified most of the things I believe. I tend not to believe what other experts tell me--for example, experts in religious doctrine. In my life, I have gone from strong acceptance of Christian beliefs in childhood to strong rejection of them in adulthood. It seems to me that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God.

So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

Humans are still a species in their infancy, Theism is just a way to protect the human mind from the unknown. Accepting it is part of the human condition. As we evolve we will most likely shed this mental barrier.

[doppelgänger]

Popularity of belief demonstrates that belief itself likely serves some useful purpose for believers. It does not mean the beliefs themselves are any more or less non-subjectively "true."

[Manahel.Fatima]

o o i think too deep talk and conversation is passing. Well when we are adults we think the world is under it feet.so they forget GOD and become thiest and leave the GOD but at the end they came to know that World is not just the end and they have to return to GOD.

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by Photonic

Humans are still a species in their infancy, Theism is just a way to protect the human mind from the unknown. Accepting it is part of the human condition. As we evolve we will most likely shed this mental barrier.

Oh, is that all Theism is? There were plenty of atheists in past times. There is a lot more to believing in a divinity than what you seem to think.

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

Oh, is that all Theism is? There were plenty of atheists in past times. There is a lot more to believing in a divinity than what you seem to think.

Not really, it's an appeal to emotion instead of reason.

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Unless of course Your Divinity is one of Reason.
(ex. Queen of Swords, Reason and thought/cutting through emotional cloudiness)

Not that there is anything wrong with Emotional Divinity mind you.
There is a time and a place for everything.
There is also balance.

I have to tell you, I opened this thread expecting to be ridiculed but I find myself pleasantly surprised. Thank you for the well reasoned response.

Appeal to emotion usually elicits responses negating reason and thought. I submit to you that these responses are not satisfactory, and you you certainly have provided a response to this as well that balance solves this.

You are very correct in this context.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Photonic

I have to tell you, I opened this thread expecting to be ridiculed but I find myself pleasantly surprised. Thank you for the well reasoned response.

Hi, Photonic. I thought that I was that one who opened the thread. And I am not quite sure what you think your reply had to do with arguments based on popularity of belief. My point was that such reasoning, while clearly fallacious, is so in-grained in our species that actually does make it important for atheists to come up with positive reasons for rejecting belief. The most common defense of atheism--that we lack reasonable evidence for the existence of gods--is useful against myths that everyone rejects, e.g. Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorns. It isn't very effective against beliefs that so many people take seriously--e.g. the existence of gods and human souls.

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Hi, Photonic. I thought that I was that one who opened the thread. And I am not quite sure what you think your reply had to do with arguments based on popularity of belief. My point was that such reasoning, while clearly fallacious, is so in-grained in our species that actually does make it important for atheists to come up with positive reasons for rejecting belief. The most common defense of atheism--that we lack reasonable evidence for the existence of gods--is useful against myths that everyone rejects, e.g. Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorns. It isn't very effective against beliefs that so many people take seriously--e.g. the existence of gods and human souls.

By open I mean literally open, not start.

Here's the thing though, should religion exist simply because we want it too?

No, there are plenty of things that would be more beneficial to mankind of they focused on that instead. Many people simply exist, not caring much about this life in promise of what comes after. I don't think that is such a good philosophy as it abandons the concept of humanity surviving into the future, and advocates a state of stagnation.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to
believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Many people simply exist, not caring much about this life,
or the idea of any other "next" life, or anything else.

The philosophy of not caring about this life,
in promise of what comes next,
is not any kind of umbrella philosophy for religions or theisms.

Not by a long shot.

Which is why I did not state it as a definitive.