How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[Treehugger]

I am posting this after having been temporarily suspended from another forum for mocking the notion of a certain person's actual death and actual coming back to life after the equivalent of a long weekend rotting in the grave. Apparently, I have given offense.

However, how is it that full-grown, otherwise intelligent adults can believe literal accounts of the resurrection or other religious miracles?

[Ruralguy]

I find it simpler just to respect people's beliefs without accepting them. Debating matters of faith is rather like trying to figure out exactly why any two people fell in love...looking into it too deeply doesn't really have you learning much.

I suppose a psychologist can answer your literal question.

[Anselm]

Simple.  They believe that their deity can work miracles and that there has been good evidence for actual miracles happening.  There really is not much more to discuss.   


"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."

- Franz Werfel

[kaysixteen]

What evidence would convince you of the correctness of the Biblical stories, or for that matter of the claims of any other religious texts?

[mahagonny]

I am posting this after having been temporarily suspended from another forum for mocking the notion of a certain person's actual death and actual coming back to life after the equivalent of a long weekend rotting in the grave. Apparently, I have given offense.

However, how is it that full-grown, otherwise intelligent adults can believe literal accounts of the resurrection or other religious miracles?

In my protestant religion nobody knew how much of it anyone believed, but the shared idea was everyone believed that people long ago were so powerfully affected by some goings on to do with the Supreme Being that there was too much there not to take heed of it. As a little kid I was earnest and was ready to believe all of it literally. I found out that my eagerness impressed people, but was seen as a bit over the top.
Now I find things have changed, so hundreds of people cheered wildly while George Carlin took apart the whole theory of 'The Man in the Sky" with total ridicule. So now I believe him. Well, within reason. I also believed him when he said comedians sometimes had to exaggerate for effect. Of course entertainment is not faith, but there's some relationship.
The 1960's, 70's popular music, books and movies of the time, changed things.
So I conclude that we pick something to believe that's somewhere in the range of what we are allowed to believe. Whatever gets us approval and belonging, makes a little sense, and lets us believe we are sane.

[quasihumanist]

I don't really know what it means to "believe" something, and I certainly don't know what it means to "believe" something as abstract as religion "literally".

I just assume that when someone says they believe something literally, that they probably mean something different by that than I might.

[financeguy]

I recommend reading Influence by Robert Chialdini. The book goes over a number of reasons why people are influenced in a variety of contexts such as sales, voting and dating, but one some of the examples involve religious cults. (Presumably avoiding the "big 3" cults so as not to offend...) I won't get into the specifics but when the main tenants of a specific religion is disproved (the leader was to return at x time and did not) the followers strengthened rather than rejected their faith. An overly simplistic explanation would be rationalization based on sunk cost but I highly recommend reading.

My own premise is that very few actually believe literally, but pretending they do is a powerful in group signal to others who have made the same public statement in the same way that wearing a condom on one's head has nothing to do with a fraternity's stated purpose but shows a level of commitment to do/say/believe something so absurd that it could only demonstrate the elevation of the group inclusion above one's own rational thought. This is basically the purpose of a marriage ceremony as well. Agreeing with something rationally does not prove group loyalty. Going along with something that is irrational supports the fact that one has submitted to the group. The more who do so, the more this is reinforced.

If you want to further the premise of your statement, I find it difficult to fathom that people "believe" in the necessity of government for things to "work" despite ample evidence as small as potholes and as large as the numerous genocides of just the last century to prove they do anything but. This is the religions of the left. At least I can't "disprove" the resurrection. I can easily prove the non-functionality of governments by pointing to over a hundred million deaths in the just the 20th century.

[mamselle]

Because we do.

Because faith isn't about proof, or it wouldn't be faith.

Because religious texts offer a transcendent way of integrating wisdom, understanding, and experience about life.

M.

(You might want to ask the mods to fix the title, there's an error in the text).

[Treehugger]

I find it simpler just to respect people's beliefs without accepting them. Debating matters of faith is rather like trying to figure out exactly why any two people fell in love...looking into it too deeply doesn't really have you learning much.

I suppose a psychologist can answer your literal question.

I wasn't mocking a certain poster's belief. We were discussing conspiracies theories and I was using that as an analogy for how really intelligent people could believe crazy conspiracy theories.

[Treehugger]

Because we do.

Because faith isn't about proof, or it wouldn't be faith.

Because religious texts offer a transcendent way of integrating wisdom, understanding, and experience about life.

M.

(You might want to ask the mods to fix the title, there's an error in the text).

And are dangerous when they are taken literally, which they are by many people. Also, what you say may be applied to QAnon "believers." Believing that Trump is secretly fighting an international rising of pedophiles is what they actually believe and it gives them a sense of meaning, purpose and whatever in life. And, in my book, it is not OK.

[Caracal]

I find it simpler just to respect people's beliefs without accepting them. Debating matters of faith is rather like trying to figure out exactly why any two people fell in love...looking into it too deeply doesn't really have you learning much.

I suppose a psychologist can answer your literal question.

I wasn't mocking a certain poster's belief. We were discussing conspiracies theories and I was using that as an analogy for how really intelligent people could believe crazy conspiracy theories.

The problem is that modern rationalism is, itself, a belief system which presupposes lots of unprovable ideas about cause and effect and a million other things. It only makes sense within a certain historically contingent belief system. You don't think these things because you're more logical and rational than other people, you think them because of a cultural world you inhabit.

Also the important thing to realize about Christianity is that it is supposed to be weird, bizarre and outside the realm of the ordinary. Arguing that the story is implausible is a little like looking at a Rothko painting and saying "this guy doesn't know to paint, its just a bunch of colors!" You're not required to like modern art, but this isn't exactly a sophisticated critique.

[Treehugger]

I find it simpler just to respect people's beliefs without accepting them. Debating matters of faith is rather like trying to figure out exactly why any two people fell in love...looking into it too deeply doesn't really have you learning much.

I suppose a psychologist can answer your literal question.

I wasn't mocking a certain poster's belief. We were discussing conspiracies theories and I was using that as an analogy for how really intelligent people could believe crazy conspiracy theories.

The problem is that modern rationalism is, itself, a belief system which presupposes lots of unprovable ideas about cause and effect and a million other things. It only makes sense within a certain historically contingent belief system. You don't think these things because you're more logical and rational than other people, you think them because of a cultural world you inhabit.

Sure, modern rationalism involves "believing" certain things. But even if we use the same word as is used in discussing religion, we are not talking about the same thing. There is everyday rational belief and there is religious belief. They are qualitatively different. The belief that I use to navigate my way through the world is built up from my personal experience, vicarious experience and reason. My beliefs about they way the world works are open to change. Like others, I can use my experience and reason to come to conclusions and believe things that turn out to be incorrect. But, in general, I am much more likely to be "correct." That is — I am much more likely to interpret the world in such a way that I can act within it to bring about the outcome that I desire.

For example, I can say, hmmmm ....I don't feel sick at all and I thought I wasn't sick, but these CT scans show that I have a "mass" and the biopsy shows that it is malignant. Then I can also say I know (or believe?) that chemotherapy is literally poison (Taxol, to take but one example, is derived from the poisonous yew tree). But I also know (believe?) that its net benefit will be therapeutic because it will wind up killing more cancer cells than normal cells because the former grow at a faster rate than the former. Based on these facts (objects of belief?) I think that this course of treatment will be my best bet for a "cure" or long-term remission. I may turn out to be wrong about any number of these facts or beliefs. I doubt it, but we may learn that chemo doesn't actually work they way we think it works and in fact is usually worse than simply doing nothing at all. Or, what is much more likely, it just doesn't work for me, for my body and the genetic makeup of my particular cancer in exactly way we had hoped.

Alternatively, I could believe in the religious sense. Religious belief, from what I understand, seems to be defined the opposite of rational "belief." After all, if something were rational and easily believable, why would we need to have faith? God works in mysterious ways and all that. So, if I were a true believer, I would simply pray to God, the omnipotent being who has my best interests at heart and he would protect me. That's all I would need to do.

So, which belief or set of beliefs is "better"? That is, which is more likely to bring about the desired outcome (cure or long-term remission)? I think we all know the answer to that.

Of course, in the real world, lots of religious folk go and get treated with modern medicine ... in addition to petitioning the almighty. Why?

One possibility is that they don't actually believe what they say they believe — they don't actually believe that their God is omnipotent and capable of working miracles on the behalf of true believers.

Or, if they are deep thinkers, they will build up some complicated theory about how God is actually working through the oncologists and cancer researchers to bring about a modern-day miracle (their cure). But what they are actually doing is just adopting rational, scientific beliefs and reaping the benefit of medical science without giving science its full due. (It's not scientists doing this. It's God!)

Or, finally, they can just compartmentalize. They can say: I believe in medical science, so I'll get the chemo. But I believe that prayer will help me emotionally, so I will pray to give myself psychological/spiritual comfort. This latter is probably the least harmful way of approaching the situation, but I do not agree that it is somehow better than a full-on atheist approach, one great advantage of which is that you do not need to go through life compartmentalizing and attempting to believe different things in different circumstances.

But to go back to your post, Caracal. I agree that modern rationalism is historical and culturally contingent, not absolute (in any case, that is already implied by the qualifier "modern"). However, it is still the best "belief" system we have available to us at this time. Again, where "better" means most likely to produce the results one aims for.

[Ruralguy]

That's pretty much the answer as I would see it, Treehugger.

One could say that I believe in gravity due to evidence and a coherent theory, but to link all of the observations I'd personally see, such as falling apples, the motion of the Moon and the complicated apparent motion of planets on the sky, to Newton's theories really takes some leaps of faith in my book. I think I tend to believe it because it works for keeping buildings standing, rockets moving and can predict  where a home run will land. Quantum mechanics is even more of a stretch. I'm still not sure I really really believe it, though it works.

[marshwiggle]

Sure, modern rationalism involves "believing" certain things. But even if we use the same word as is used in discussing religion, we are not talking about the same thing. There is everyday rational belief and there is religious belief. They are qualitatively different. The belief that I use to navigate my way through the world, is built up from my personal experience, vicarious experience and reason. My beliefs about they way the world works are open to change. Like others, I can use my experience and reason to come to conclusions and believe things that turn out to be incorrect. But, in general, I am much more likely to be "correct." That is — I am much more likely to interpret the world in such a way that I can act within it to bring about the outcome that I desire.

This is a way biger topic than can be addressed easily, but I'm happy to discuss it.
This assumption of the difference between "rational" belief and "religious" belief is partly based on charicatures. (And of course, different people will present both of those ideas very differently. Is an anti-vaxxer, having been exposed to a lot of incorrect science, exhibiting "rational" belief based on bad data?)


Here are a few things that "rational" people accept, but requiring a lot of what would be called "faith" in a religious context.

• Quantum mechanics. A quotation, perhaps incorrectly attirubed to Feinman says "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
• Consciousness. The "scientific" fudge on this one is to  say that "consciousness in an emergent property of certain systems." (Emergent property is scientific gibberish for "it obviously exists, but we have no clue how it works".)
• Free will. See quantum mechanics and consciousness. If brain function is either deterministic or probabilistic, the idea of "changing one's mind" is pretty meaningless. If we don't actually make decisions, our brains are an incredibly realistic simulation of it.
• Morality. See all of the above. Show me a rationalist who does not think genocide, child sex trafficking, and so on as deserving of punishment.  But that requires an assumption of free will and a sense that all values are not completely culturally relative.

Faith is basically admitting that an idea which is incomplete or paradoxical in many details may nevertheless describe some apparently fundamental truth about reality.

Many (most?) religious people would not suggest that their faith dictates exactly what to do in any given situation, but that it provides general principles which apply.

(And I would never try to kick anyone off here for questioning religious belief, and I imagine most religious people on here would express a similar sentiment.)

[Treehugger]

Sure, modern rationalism involves "believing" certain things. But even if we use the same word as is used in discussing religion, we are not talking about the same thing. There is everyday rational belief and there is religious belief. They are qualitatively different. The belief that I use to navigate my way through the world, is built up from my personal experience, vicarious experience and reason. My beliefs about they way the world works are open to change. Like others, I can use my experience and reason to come to conclusions and believe things that turn out to be incorrect. But, in general, I am much more likely to be "correct." That is — I am much more likely to interpret the world in such a way that I can act within it to bring about the outcome that I desire.

This is a way biger topic than can be addressed easily, but I'm happy to discuss it.
This assumption of the difference between "rational" belief and "religious" belief is partly based on charicatures. (And of course, different people will present both of those ideas very differently. Is an anti-vaxxer, having been exposed to a lot of incorrect science, exhibiting "rational" belief based on bad data?)


Here are a few things that "rational" people accept, but requiring a lot of what would be called "faith" in a religious context.

• Quantum mechanics. A quotation, perhaps incorrectly attirubed to Feinman says "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
• Consciousness. The "scientific" fudge on this one is to  say that "consciousness in an emergent property of certain systems." (Emergent property is scientific gibberish for "it obviously exists, but we have no clue how it works".)
• Free will. See quantum mechanics and consciousness. If brain function is either deterministic or probabilistic, the idea of "changing one's mind" is pretty meaningless. If we don't actually make decisions, our brains are an incredibly realistic simulation of it.
• Morality. See all of the above. Show me a rationalist who does not think genocide, child sex trafficking, and so on as deserving of punishment.  But that requires an assumption of free will and a sense that all values are not completely culturally relative.

Faith is basically admitting that an idea which is incomplete or paradoxical in many details may nevertheless describe some apparently fundamental truth about reality.

Many (most?) religious people would not suggest that their faith dictates exactly what to do in any given situation, but that it provides general principles which apply.

(And I would never try to kick anyone off here for questioning religious belief, and I imagine most religious people on here would express a similar sentiment.)

Wow. There is so much to discuss here. But in regards to your last point — morality — there is no reason to believe atheism or a more rational approach to the world is either immoral or amoral. There is no incompatibility at all between being an atheist and trusting science on the one hand and abhorring child trafficking on the other. Some eighteenth century philosophers referred to this an innate moral sense. But you can also see humans' moral connection to others as being an evolutionary advantage. Humans were simply more likely to survive if they behaved morally — if they cared for their children and others in their tribe, no matter what their belief systems actually were. Today, most parents have an entirely natural love for their children, their other family members and their friends that has nothing at all to do with religious belief.

Of course, humanity's natural moral sense only extends so far. It only extends to those who are close and not those who are "other." But here is where reason comes in. For those who have thought about it, they can see that it is indeed rational for us to extend our moral sense to others, to children whom we have never even met and who might be if another race because we understand that this will ultimately make the world a better place for everyone. Really, you don't need a God or a sacred text to do this.