Why do believers believe what they believe?

[osgart]

Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. People interpret the same evidence differently so they arrive at different conclusions.
That sounds like what I have been saying for years on this forum. Apparently, you and I think alike....
I only wish I could get people to understand this, it is so obvious.

A lot can go wrong with interpretations of evidence as far as I can tell. Yet I think evidence has limits, and we are stuck with interpretation.

 

[sayak83]

There is a BIG difference. I do not call other people deluded. If they say that they believe in God because they directly experienced God I take them at their word, even though I do not believe that is possible.

I think people need to have boundaries so they can separate from other people and what they believe and show respect for others' beliefs.
Beliefs are only beliefs so they cannot be proven true or false. I might believe my beliefs are true and you might believe your beliefs are true, but those are only our personal convictions.

As noted in the definition of the word "deluded", if you think that another person believes in something that is not true, then you actually do believe that this person is deluded in his belief. Whether you explicitly use the word "deluded" is kind of irrelevant. It's just what the word means.

 

[Trailblazer]

As noted in the definition of the word "deluded", if you think that another person believes in something that is not true, then you actually do believe that this person is deluded in his belief. Whether you explicitly use the word "deluded" is kind of irrelevant. It's just what the word means.

Nobody except me knows what I think or believe unless I tell them.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

There is a BIG difference. I do not call other people deluded. If they say that they believe in God because they directly experienced God I take them at their word, even though I do not believe that is possible.

I can attest to this statement. I have on numerous occasions expressed my direct experience with the divine, and even say that other people experience this same divine reality I have come to experience, and she has never been so callous enough to tell me that I am deluded. In fact, I think her understanding of Baha'u'llah being one of several manifestations is misplaced authority, but I don't call her deluded either. Respect may be earned rather than given but Trailblazer has earned my respect on several occasions while having in-depth theological and religious conversations with her.

I think people need to have boundaries so they can separate from other people and what they believe and show respect for others' beliefs.
Beliefs are only beliefs so they cannot be proven true or false. I might believe my beliefs are true and you might believe your beliefs are true, but those are only our personal convictions.

I entirely agree with this statement wholeheartedly. In fact, I would compare beliefs, especially religious and spiritual ones, to opinions. Blue is my favorite color. I think blue is the best color because of it. Is it really? That's really up to each individual to decide for themselves. But I would like to say that her religion, the Baha'i Faith, has some truth to it simply by existing. Baha'u'llah made a religion that unifies God. If everyone suddenly became a Baha'i, that would ultimately create the unity of God he was looking for. Whereas truths in Christianity largely depend on events such as the rapture. It's been nearly two-thousand years since Jesus died and still no rapture. Baha'u'llah envisioned a unified society that will happen through our sovereignty and religious beliefs, and Christians imagine a rapture which all living people will be judged by God and if you aren't on the right side, you'll go to Hell even before you die. Which eschatology would you prefer to believe?

 

[Truthseeker]

I know you were tired last night because you told me.
Did you mean to say: "I managed to make her a little more conventional over the years, but not much"?
Otherwise, what you said in its entirety doesn't make sense since you are a conventional Baha'i.

Of course I meant I have helped make you more conventional. It was more being in a rush than being tired. That didn't come out right, either, if I said what I meant to say. I was in a hurry and in haste I said I "made" you more conventional. You made your own decision as we talked about this. I didn't make you to be anything.

 

[Truthseeker]

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

It's true than over the years on forums it did seem to me you did believe the word of the atheists when they said they "saw" no evidence that God existed. What you say next is logical, why else would they not believe what you say about there being evidence. Though I would word it a little differently. It's because they don't "see" any evidence, and they don't see how you would "see" any evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

You are speaking for other people as if you know what they did, but you don't know. Only they know if they put their beliefs to the test.
You also don't know if there is a discrepancy, you just believe that.

I don't think he is saying that everyone sees it that way.

I think that most people have no idea why they believe what they believe.

Notice, "most" people.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think he is saying that everyone sees it that way.

He was not referring to everyone, he was referring to most people.

@PureX said: I think that most people have no idea why they believe what they believe. Someone told them a story and they had no reason to doubt it, so they didn't. And they never really put it to the test. But I guess the story must not have misaligned with their reality too much or they would have been forced to notice the discrepancy.

Notice, "most" people.

Do you think that most people have no idea why they believe what they believe?
I don't think so. Maybe some people have no idea why they believe what they believe, but I think most people know why.
Since 84 percent of the world population has a faith that means that most people believe because of that faith (by faith is meant a religion).

 

[CG Didymus]

Why wouldn't you verify?

I think it's important to look at the evidence for and against. Lots of believers in Christianity and the Baha'is Faith, and probably Islam too, seem to take it for granted the Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but have they looked into the reasons why he is rejected as being the Jewish Messiah? To take the Baha'i recommendation on how to look at the evidence, and this to come in without preconceived ideas. I did my best to do that when I asked a Jew why he rejected Jesus. From his perspective, I can see why, and I believe him. But I also believe Christians as to why they reject Muhammad. And why Muslims reject Baha'u'llah.

The reasons are very similar. They didn't do the right things. They didn't correctly fulfill the prophecies. And they didn't come in the right way and in the right place. If a person wants to ignore those things, then have they really taken an honest look at all the evidence? Both the positive and the negative? If they have and they still believe in a God and a religion, then that's great. But then there are some of us who have looked at the pros and cons, and the "for" and "against" evidence. And have chosen not to believe any of them. For us, the "cons" outweigh the "pros".

 

[dybmh]

I think it's important to look at the evidence for and against. Lots of believers in Christianity and the Baha'is Faith, and probably Islam too, seem to take it for granted the Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but have they looked into the reasons why he is rejected as being the Jewish Messiah? To take the Baha'i recommendation on how to look at the evidence, and this to come in without preconceived ideas. I did my best to do that when I asked a Jew why he rejected Jesus. From his perspective, I can see why, and I believe him. But I also believe Christians as to why they reject Muhammad. And why Muslims reject Baha'u'llah.

The reasons are very similar. They didn't do the right things. They didn't correctly fulfill the prophecies. And they didn't come in the right way and in the right place. If a person wants to ignore those things, then have they really taken an honest look at all the evidence? Both the positive and the negative? If they have and they still believe in a God and a religion, then that's great. But then there are some of us who have looked at the pros and cons, and the "for" and "against" evidence. And have chosen not to believe any of them. For us, the "cons" outweigh the "pros".

The point I was making is, if you're going to make comments about other people's lack of quality when it comes to their evidence, then you should have better quality evidence yourself. If you trust, but don't verify, then you have no room to critisize others for trusting and not verifying.

 

[CG Didymus]

It sure isnt fun to read that bloated turgid prose.

There's a place where wants and needs blur together.
But I understand the need to believe gain of needs must come thro' pain, The more the better.


Apparently you stumbled into somethhng that
filled an unrecognized need.

Not being burdened by such neediness. I can look
at religious texts dispassionately.

That balulah stuff is overwritten obscurantism with mo
content . I'd rather be marooned with the book of mormon.

It's not fun to be a Baha'i? Religion is not a "fact"? But that an unprovable, unknowable God is true and real? But that's not a fact? Yes, why do believers believe what they believe? Since it can't be proven wrong it must be what? Worth joining and being miserable?

 

[CG Didymus]

The point I was making is, if you're going to make comments about other people's lack of quality when it comes to their evidence, then you should have better quality evidence yourself. If you trust, but don't verify, then you have no room to critisize others for trusting and not verifying.

Yeah, that's why I only quoted that one part of your post, because it seems like the evidence against certain religious beliefs are sometimes ignored.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, that's why I only quoted that one part of your post, because it seems like the evidence against certain religious beliefs are sometimes ignored.

Most people 'round here ignore evidence. So it's rare to find someone who has room to gripe. The worst among them seem to be bible-critics.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not fun to be a Baha'i?

For some Baha'is, but not for all Baha'is.
What's fun about it? Fun for me would be going on a vacation, not going to a Baha'i meeting and studying the Writings.

Religion is not a "fact"? But that an unprovable, unknowable God is true and real? But that's not a fact?

Yes, that is what I believe. God can never be proven as a fact which means that Messengers of God cannot be facts either.
If these were facts they would not be beliefs.

Yes, why do believers believe what they believe? Since it can't be proven wrong it must be what? Worth joining and being miserable?

It cannot be proven true or false since it is unknowable between true or false.
Most Baha'is aren't miserable, they love their religious activities and their God.

 

[sayak83]

Nobody except me knows what I think or believe unless I tell them.

You are being unreasonable here. The word deluded means something right? If anyone's thinking about somebody else conforms with what the word means, then the word applies.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

It's not fun to be a Baha'i?

For some Baha'is, but not for all Baha'is.
What's fun about it? Fun for me would be going on a vacation, not going to a Baha'i meeting and studying the Writings.

The Baha'i Faith all kinds of rules, both on what you should and shouldn't do.

Baha'is cannot smoke, drink, gamble, have premarital intercourse, gays can't marry, you can't beg as a profession or backbite, or defame people through lies and deceit behind people's backs. All of this I'm perfectly fine with. What I do have a problem with, is that although Baha'is can vote in their respective democratic nations, and should vote in Baha'i elections for leadership within the religion, Baha'is are forbidden to partake in partisan politics and cannot join a political party. Apparently the Universal House of Justice made a huge stink about this, and Baha'is are "above" that type of behavior. Although honestly, all the Baha'is I met leaned left in politics, and weren't shy to talk about it, despite the order from the UHJ.

What Baha'is are supposed to do, more specifically, is to recite one of three obligatory prayers every day. There's a short prayer that takes less than a few minutes to recite. The medium and long prayers are considerably more complex than the short prayer, that most Baha'is perform. Apparently you are also supposed to recite these facing the Baha'i Holy Site of Haifa, Israel. As well, there is a 19-Day Fast between March 1 and March 19, which are the last days of the Baha'i calendar year. Most Baha'is are instructed not to eat and to think about God and read scripture during this time. During the first of every Baha'i calendar month there is also a feast exclusively for Baha'is where they join in fellowship with each other. As a Baha'i is it expected that you read the scripture they have on their website, or even better, download their program Ocean Interfaith Reader and study not just the Baha'i texts but various other scriptures from the world's leading religions.

What Trailblazer said led me to think about another rite of passage for Baha'is. Although it is not truly consider a "vacation", many Baha'is go to their national temple in several different countries, or even better yet, travel to Haifa, Israel to see the burial site of Baha'u'llah and experience the gardens and the nine-sided temple that is there. Baha'is have an obsession with nine. All of their national temples are structured with nine sides. As well, some famous people are Baha'is, including Rainn Wilson, who played Dwight Shrute in The Office. He is an author, creator of SoulPancake and knows a lot of about the religion. Another thing Baha'is stress is the importance of secular work and Baha'u'llah himself compares it to praying. There's a lot of good things about the religion, including but not limited to, the equality of the sexes, despite the UHJ members having to be all men, the importance of both religion and science as they work together such as "two wings of a bird" and the unity of humankind, including the unity of religion, God and the recognition of sovereignty for each nation that currently exists.

In short, there's a lot more to like about the religion than there is to dislike, and it compelled me to learn all about this faith in further detail. I actually know even more about this, particularly the scriptures, that I won't go too in-depth in this post, but, in short, becoming and being a Baha'i isn't a religion which you just tell people you are something and therefore become it, yet, it's not as restrictive as many NRMs and cult-like religions have became in recent years. I remember talking to the woman on the phone about the religion, she stressed to me that if I have any Christian friends that I just "play along" with them, which goes completely against their own rules, and that "everybody sins in this religion and it's pretty much okay to do so." This is probably the reason why I don't see Baha'is being homophobic, despite not allowing gays to marry or have sex with each other. The only unforgiveable sin in the Baha'i Faith is covenant-breaking, which essentially is, starting a new religion and calling it a Baha'i religion. The Baha'is like to think there is only one Baha'i Faith, although this isn't entirely true, they have snubbed the other Baha'i divisions and virtually all Baha'is belong to the same sect of the religion.

I realize that unity has not fully been established and the next prophet of the Baha'i Faith hasn't been born yet, but my theological understanding and beliefs are so ahead of everything I've ever heard, besides some advanced philosophers, theologians and autodidactic people like myself I almost consider myself "post-Baha'i", meaning, I believe what the Baha'i Faith teaches about world unity, but I'm also looking to the reality that is also post-unity, a reality which humans establish their sovereignty and unity everywhere in this Universe and reality in general. Through many talks with Trailblazer I have come to realize that our differences are really only in where authority is appreciated, and general basic theological principles, like the differences between monotheism and panentheism. But I deeply respect her as a person who has decided to make debating skeptics online a passion of hers, and although I'm hundreds of years further than most people on these matters, I feel like she has a mutual understanding of how I perceive God. It's easy to say, "God is reality", but it's much harder to deconstruct that. As well, it's also easy calling yourself a Baha'i, but actively being and engaging yourself with the Baha'i Faith is a difficult thing to do, given the fact that the religion calls so few and their numbers are so thin and far inbetween.

This post alone could be used to explain pretty much the religion as a whole except for the actual scriptures, which would take several more paragraphs to explain.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are being unreasonable here. The word deluded means something right? If anyone's thinking about somebody else conforms with what the word means, then the word applies.

I do not believe that anyone is deluded. They simply have different beliefs than I do.

 

[sayak83]

I do not believe that anyone is deluded. They simply have different beliefs than I do.

You must be using a different meaning of the word than in the dictionary.
According to the definition I saw, if a person believes that any other person believes something that is not True, then by definition of the word, it means that the first person believes the second person is deluded about that belief.
The word may have taken a pejorative overtone in today's circles...like calling someone publicly blind is considered rude if she is in fact blind...but I see a person who cannot see, I will believe she is blind correct? The same with deluded word.
And since everyone in this world likely believes in many non true things....all of us are, by definition, deluded about these things. So if someone calls me deluded about something, why should I take offense, maybe he/she is right and I should consider the possibility. Same with myself telling others that one of their beliefs is likely untrue (again that means a delusion...even if we do not say the word because of deluded ideas of social political correctness).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You must be using a different meaning of the word than in the dictionary.
According to the definition I saw, if a person believes that any other person believes something that is not True, then by definition of the word, it means that the first person believes the second person is deluded about that belief.
The word may have taken a pejorative overtone in today's circles...like calling someone publicly blind is considered rude if she is in fact blind...but I see a person who cannot see, I will believe she is blind correct? The same with deluded word.
And since everyone in this world likely believes in many non true things....all of us are, by definition, deluded about these things. So if someone calls me deluded about something, why should I take offense, maybe he/she is right and I should consider the possibility. Same with myself telling others that one of their beliefs is likely untrue (again that means a delusion...even if we do not say the word because of deluded ideas of social political correctness).

Well, yes and no.
I get what you are saying, but the problem is that truth itself is a belief in most cases.
The short version is that knowledge as justified true belief is not possible and most people use truth as connected to knowledge. Further for truth itself there are 5 versions and only one, the correspondence theory is normally what people understand as truth, but that one has some problems in epistemology. And the 4 other are not what people generally understand as truth.

 

[sayak83]

Well, yes and no.
I get what you are saying, but the problem is that truth itself is a belief in most cases.
The short version is that knowledge as justified true belief is not possible and most people use truth as connected to knowledge. Further for truth itself there are 5 versions and only one, the correspondence theory is normally what people understand as truth, but that one has some problems in epistemology. And the 4 other are not what people generally understand as truth.

Yes. The claim that "A is deluded about fact Y" may also be unjustified.