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]

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.

 

[doppelganger]

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]

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]

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.

 

[blackout]

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

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.

 

[Photonic]

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]

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]

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

 

[blackout]

Popularity of belief is found in almost every aspect of societal life.

Politics would be an obvious one.
Or just beliefs re. what you need to do to "have a good future".
All kinds of popular beliefs that people don't think through so much
as they "jump on the bandwagon".

 

[blackout]

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

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.

 

[Photonic]

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.

 

[blackout]

Humanity is comprised of many individuals.

It is not up to you or me or anyone else to decide what others must focus on.

We will each do what we feel/think is most beneficial,
(depending on our own cause)

This is the power of the individual to Will.

I personally am not big on conformity in general.
But individual people choose it.
So there you go.
It's their right.

 

[KovertKitty]

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.

This makes me wonder if it's really true belief... Yes children are naive and trusting of authority, but with lack of knowledge and reasoning, the only option is to listen without question... But because of our natural curiosity, I don't think we are ground to truly believe proposition based on popularity, but rather accept it...

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.

I agree, seeing as doubting everything doesn't really get you anywhere...

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..

I don't feel dismissal/rejection based on lack of credible evidence is good reasoning... If there is something strongly suggesting a proposition, that is reason enough to be highty aware of it's probability... For example, a court case a long time ago involved a cigarette company being sued for allegedly causing someone lung cancer, however at the time they couldn't go through with the charges because there wasn't evidence... All they had to go off was a correlational study between lung cancer rates and the use of cigarettes... But even with the the obvious increase in lung cancer patients with the increase use of cigarettes, they dimissed it because there wasn't evidence proving it... See the problem there?

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.

I don't really think popular belief is ultimately chosen as grounds for true belief at all... Again, it's seen as grounds for acceptance... It is the lack of questioning that roots people in that acceptance... However, you can question without dismissal/rejection... And I feel that we can fuction just fine without having to believe in popular belief... We can't, however, function very well or progress if we don't question those beliefs... Not to the point of madness, but rather clarity...

 

[Copernicus]

By open I mean literally open, not start.

That's what I thought, but it was an odd way of putting it. We call the thread starter the "opening post" (or OP). By posting in the thread, you were supposedly responding to the OP itself or the theme discussed in the OP.

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

That's a good question, but I was less concerned about whether religion ought to exist than the question of whether it was reasonable to dismiss a claim that is popular merely because arguments based on popularity are invalid. I have been intrigued for some time now about why people can so easily ignore arguments that I consider quite compelling. I love to look at conclusions based on the validity of arguments that support them, so it seems pretty compelling to dismiss theism because it has little else going for it than popularity. Theism, of course, has more going for it than that, but popularity of belief is actually a very important driver for everyone. We tend to accept conventional wisdom or "common sense" claims precisely because they are popular. We can usually go on to argue their merits, but popularity of belief may well be the primary motivation for a great many of our beliefs. And belief in a spiritual world, which often includes one or more gods, is extremely popular in just about every human society.

So I'm taking this thought a step further and saying that logic alone is insufficient in arguing the case for atheism. The burden of proof may well lie with theists, but they don't feel as great a need to take it up as they do for beliefs that are unpopular. They can usually get away with ignoring the challenge to defend their belief on rational grounds. Those of us atheists who wish to debate the subject need to work harder to make the case.

Look at it this way. Nobody except children believes in Santa Claus and nobody believes that the moon is made of green cheese. Those are two irrational arguments in that they are appeals to popularity. Nevertheless, we all make those kinds of arguments all the time, and they usually serve to kill debate. Why should anyone debate what is non-controversial?

Did Jesus exist? Of course, he did. Almost all the biblical experts agree on that, even if they are non-Christians. Most people seem to find that a compelling argument for the historicity of Jesus, even though it is really not a rational argument. I don't find it justifiable (but we need not debate the subject here). So can I reasonably dismiss the point that most scholars believe in the historicity of Jesus? Not really. My dismissal of the claim cannot be made merely on the grounds that there is no more compelling reason than popularity of belief for accepting the historicity of Jesus. I need to make a better case for why I consider it reasonable to doubt his historicity.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't feel dismissal/rejection based on lack of credible evidence is good reasoning... If there is something strongly suggesting a proposition, that is reason enough to be highty aware of it's probability... For example, a court case a long time ago involved a cigarette company being sued for allegedly causing someone lung cancer, however at the time they couldn't go through with the charges because there wasn't evidence... All they had to go off was a correlational study between lung cancer rates and the use of cigarettes... But even with the the obvious increase in lung cancer patients with the increase use of cigarettes, they dimissed it because there wasn't evidence proving it... See the problem there?

Last night, Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) gave an even more compelling example of this. He interviewed Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who has been looking at the scientific evidence for a link between carcinogenic materials at 9/11 and growing cancer rates in 9/11 first responders. The government pays for some medical treatment, but it has ruled that cancer will not be covered because there is no provable link. Stewart and Gupta were making the perfectly reasonable argument (to me, anyway) that those people should be covered even if a few of them had cancers that were unrelated to their heroism. It is extremely unlikely that none of those cancers are related to 9/11, given the amount and types of carcinogens they found. Anyway, they now seem to have scientific proof to convince the bureaucrats and lawmakers of what is common sense to the rest of us.

I don't really think popular belief is ultimately chosen as grounds for true belief at all... Again, it's seen as grounds for acceptance... It is the lack of questioning that roots people in that acceptance... However, you can question without dismissal/rejection... And I feel that we can fuction just fine without having to believe in popular belief... We can't, however, function very well or progress if we don't question those beliefs... Not to the point of madness, but rather clarity...

I am intrigued by this question, however. How many of our beliefs are primarily attributable to their popularity? We are a social species, so I suspect our brains are wired to work that way. It is part of what makes social animals cooperate with each other. They share each other's outlook and beliefs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are we ignoring the fact that this popular blanket belief in "gods," in fact, covers an endless array of different actual beliefs?

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists.

I like your point here except that 'god' and the concept of 'proof' are mutually exclusive ideas. Gods that were supposed to have power and abilities in the real world died out a long time ago due to complete lack of proof. Todays gods do not have this flaw. Religion avoids anything that can be proven one way or the other like the plague. One of the biggest issues with trying to talk sense into a believer of any kind relates to what you were saying about kids trusting. When a child is told by sources he/she thinks of as essentially infallible, naturally they will be prone to believe it. As they grow up often these ideas get so intertwined with their perception of reality that their own minds will be forced to reject ideas that compromise those beliefs for fear of the damage it would do. It's an unfortunate epidemic, which leads to so many other fellow believers giving undue credence to these ridiculous notions. What else can we do but offer a strong and consistent presence of our own to offer another socially acceptable option to those with natural doubts.

I'm NOT an atheist by the way. I don't believe in believing anything that's not demonstratable.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Holy cow, Copernicus. We are seriously on some similar brainwaves.

While argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for obvious reasons-- it can support incorrect beliefs, such as the sun orbiting the Earth-- there is still a logic, a reasonableness, in accepting widespread acceptence of a belief as evidence for that belief. As you state in your OP, we would not be able to function unless we were able to quickly and easily make decisions on the multitude of things that require belief. And one of the ways we apparently evolved to be able to do that was to go see what our neighbor was doing, and whether it worked out for him.

In a very broad sense, it is what the majority believe that defines reality. Think of a schizophrenic. How do we know that his hallucinations aren't real, and our perception is? Well, it's because the vast majority of us are not seeing the giant spiders rapelling from the ceiling; only one person is. And that is a vulnerable position to be in. Majority perception, and as an extension, majority belief, acts as a buffer to weed out eccentric, incorrect and harmful worldviews.

While this method can fail, and fail spectacularly, it is such an intrinsic-- and useful!-- tool of the human mind, that it is hubristic to calvalierly toss it aside as meaningless when it doesn't support your stance.

I wholeheartedly agree with you: While the prevalence of the belief in the existence of god does not prove the truth of that belief, it does provide a compelling reason why atheists have a responsibility to defend their own stance, as a minority viewpoint.