Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/ _Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_i
n_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

In my experience they aren't. Usually we learn what is cosmologically allowable as kids. Later experiences probably alter that at bit.

What adults accept is then based on whether or not it fits within those limits. Unlike TV "believers" real people have limits what is acceptably likely to be real for them. Christians are likely to believe in angels (which they consider supernatural) but less likely to believe in leprechauns (which are also considered supernatural). Christians could probably be convinced to believe in various types of angels until you propose an "angel" that is too radically different for them.

The X-Files does a little bit of this. Mulder only accepts outlandish theories when they are vaguely sciency sounding. Scully only accepts outlandish theories when they are vaguely religious sounding.

Convincing someone that "this man jumped out a window and flew away" requires knowing how to fit that event into their view and how intense and of what nature the proof should be. Call Mulder into a darkened parking garage and cryptically tell him the man was a government experiment. Get a faraway look in your eyes, talk about her sister, and tell her it was an angel.

Real people are more complex, various belief will interact of example, but I think the basic principle holds.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

What is your theology? Are you sure it is a theology?

Aside from the cultural stuff Sym brought up, there are likely innate cognitive biases we have to see patterns and intentionality in random events.

The simplest way of describing this would be, imagine 2 organisms that are trying to survive in an environment. Two scenarios, in both cases each organism hears a rustling in the bushes behind it. In scenario 1, there is nothing there, in scenario 2, there is a predator. Organism A sees intention in random events, and in both cases flees the rustling. While it is mistaken in scenario 1, it survives scenario 2 and can pass on its genes. Organism B is skeptical and does not see intention in random events. Sure, in scenario 1 it doesn't make a mistake, but it doesn't survive scenario 2 and those skeptic genes don't get passed on to the next generation.

It is a just-so explanation, and obviously things like religion and magic are a little more complicated, but it is that bias to see patterns in noise (and there is a huge psychological literature on this: humans actually seek these patterns and can't help but see them in noise) that creates the acceptance of these types of things, at least insofar as the phenomenon exists beyond cultural memes.

What's a miracle though?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience they aren't. Usually we learn what is cosmologically allowable as kids. Later experiences probably alter that at bit.

What adults accept is then based on whether or not it fits within those limits. Unlike TV "believers" real people have limits what is acceptably likely to be real for them. Christians are likely to believe in angels (which they consider supernatural) but less likely to believe in leprechauns (which are also considered supernatural). Christians could probably be convinced to believe in various types of angels until you propose an "angel" that is too radically different for them.

The X-Files does a little bit of this. Mulder only accepts outlandish theories when they are vaguely sciency sounding. Scully only accepts outlandish theories when they are vaguely religious sounding.

Convincing someone that "this man jumped out a window and flew away" requires knowing how to fit that event into their view and how intense and of what nature the proof should be. Call Mulder into a darkened parking garage and cryptically tell him the man was a government experiment. Get a faraway look in your eyes, talk about her sister, and tell her it was an angel.

Real people are more complex, various belief will interact of example, but I think the basic principle holds.



What is your theology? Are you sure it is a theology?

Thanks for this food for thought.

From my point of view, both theology and philosophy are just both word that represent sets of thought that try to produce the best rules or laws to live by.

Sure, philosophy may claim a President ( or whoever ), while religions claim a God or whoever or whatever,---- but all that can be followed are the rules that either personage or system gives.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Oliver North
Aside from the cultural stuff Sym brought up, there are likely innate cognitive biases we have to see patterns and intentionality in random events.

The simplest way of describing this would be, imagine 2 organisms that are trying to survive in an environment. Two scenarios, in both cases each organism hears a rustling in the bushes behind it. In scenario 1, there is nothing there, in scenario 2, there is a predator. Organism A sees intention in random events, and in both cases flees the rustling. While it is mistaken in scenario 1, it survives scenario 2 and can pass on its genes. Organism B is skeptical and does not see intention in random events. Sure, in scenario 1 it doesn't make a mistake, but it doesn't survive scenario 2 and those skeptic genes don't get passed on to the next generation.

It is a just-so explanation, and obviously things like religion and magic are a little more complicated, but it is that bias to see patterns in noise (and there is a huge psychological literature on this: humans actually seek these patterns and can't help but see them in noise) that creates the acceptance of these types of things, at least insofar as the phenomenon exists beyond cultural memes.

The Princess Alice clip hinted at much the same conclusions as yours but the scientists thought that although good for children, that phenomena should come under more logical control in adults.

It does not seem to unless most Christians and other believers are lying. I think a case can be made for such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

I think most just follow culture and traditions.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bardock42
What's a miracle though?

Webster will know.

I do not plan on changing known definitions.

Regards
DL

ON and Sym really hit this from both relevant sides. I'll cosign both of their initial posts.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
The Princess Alice clip hinted at much the same conclusions as yours but the scientists thought that although good for children, that phenomena should come under more logical control in adults.

evidence of humans seeking patterns in noise is robust for adults.

I mostly struggle with clearly elucidating those points to people who are so set in their beliefs that they'll ignore anything else. Like, after annihilating astrology to a coworker who follows her horoscope, she responded with something akin to "Oh, it's always so interesting to hear your take, but I think there's something to it." Basically, a pat on the head and a casual dismissal of all points.

She's a smart woman, and is happy to discuss these things. But despite never hearing a cogent rebuttal from her on several topics, I've gotten her to consider exactly nothing outside her own belief bubble.

So it's not just that they can come to believe such things, but that they'll stick with those beliefs even against counter-evidence and lacking any logical grounding in them. That, to me, is more mystifying than coming to the beliefs in the first place.

Originally posted by Digi
I mostly struggle with clearly elucidating those points to people who are so set in their beliefs that they'll ignore anything else. Like, after annihilating astrology to a coworker who follows her horoscope, she responded with something akin to "Oh, it's always so interesting to hear your take, but I think there's something to it." Basically, a pat on the head and a casual dismissal of all points.
So what exactly did you tell her?

Originally posted by Digi
She's a smart woman, and is happy to discuss these things. But despite never hearing a cogent rebuttal from her on several topics, I've gotten her to consider exactly nothing outside her own belief bubble.
Maybe she's not interested in arguing? There are people who prefer to just listen.

Originally posted by Digi
So it's not just that they can come to believe such things, but that they'll stick with those beliefs even against counter-evidence and lacking any logical grounding in them. That, to me, is more mystifying than coming to the beliefs in the first place.
A lot can be used as evidence, but just because there's evidence doesn't mean that the court will judge in your favor. Which brings me back to my first question, what were your arguments against astrology?

I personally would like to hear the arguments for astrology.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I personally would like to hear the arguments for astrology.
So would I, but I'm more interested in arguments against it.

Originally posted by Astner
So would I, but I'm more interested in arguments against it.
For what reason?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
For what reason?
Because I believe that there's better evidence against it than for it.

Originally posted by Astner
Maybe she's not interested in arguing? There are people who prefer to just listen.

But he just said she's happy to discuss it, just not to consider the arguments or budge on her position.

Originally posted by Astner
So what exactly did you tell her?

Maybe she's not interested in arguing? There are people who prefer to just listen.

A lot can be used as evidence, but just because there's evidence doesn't mean that the court will judge in your favor. Which brings me back to my first question, what were your arguments against astrology?

Mostly what you would expect.

- I mentioned burden of proof on the claim.
- I explained what astrology actually is - celestial bodies hundreds or thousands of light years away, affecting our lives on a daily basis. And, further, affecting them in such a way that can be predicted by people with no formal training in it. And, further, that these predictions can be generalized into 12 types that cover every possible person on the planet based on when they came out of their mother's uterus. And furthers, that the wildly variable horoscopes, which can change from source to source, somehow have an identifiable truth behind them, even when two contradict. Honestly, that alone should debunk anything that's ever been said about astrology.
- She invoked the moon at one point, and I cited studies that show that the moon's gravitational pull has no discernible affect on our internal processes, let alone unfalsifiable things like our love lives. I didn't get a chance to go into the myths surrounding full moons (most testable, and empirically disproven several times), but I would have if I had thought about it.
- And, related to all of that, the utter lack of plausible mechanisms by which said celestial movements could affect us, bringing us back around to the burden of proof and lack of any evidence for it.
- I also talked about the multi-million dollar industry that is astrology, and how con artists dupe gullible people out of their money by selling them books, trinkets, counseling, spirit wards, etc. based on these principles.

For the record, in this particular discussion, I was pulled into it because she knew I'd be a dissenting opinion (there were a few involved). I didn't accost her with it involuntarily. And, by and large, it was met with casual laughter and eye rolls of dismissal because I lacked an openness or creativity to consider it as a possibility. The appeal to the moon was the lone attempt at an actual argument for it.

Another bystander said "Oh, ye of little faith" with a smile, and mentioned as rebuttal that minutes earlier I had been talking about Star Wars passionately (ignoring that I don't consider SW to be real). Again, all intelligent people. One was a visiting VIP in our organization, who consults for multi-national corporations.

Many people can't be convinced on logical or empirical grounds, or even made to question something. That's more troublesome than the belief itself.

Are you defending astrology? Or merely disagreeing with my approach? I'm curious. If you have a better approach to debunking it, I'd love to hear it.

Also, I would disagree with a couple of your assertions. The very first, that the burden of proof goes both ways, is wrong. By its very nature, the burden can't be on both sides. We don't know for sure. There's our default. Her claim of "it's real" carries the burden, not my claim that no evidence exists for it. Technically, "it's real" is unfalsifiable (or rather, "I believe it's real", but the specific predictive claims of astrology are subject to empirical scrutiny.

Second, related to that, any potential correlation that can only be explained supernaturally, as you put it, still needs to be explained for the claim to have any validity.

Third, I didn't say it was direct causation (though I quoted moon studies that speak against that idea). But the absurdity of celestial bodies exerting any type of influence still needs some kind of evidence before it can be maintained as plausible or even possible, because all known methods of influence have been tested for and found severely wanting. Otherwise, you're chastising me for not falsifying a make believe cosmic Force that we have know way of understanding, observing, or interacting with.

Fourth, two contradicting readings in traditional science can be reconciled. They cannot in astrology, because there is no actual methodology. Don't conflate mistakes with guesses.

Your point about corporations is well-made. Though there exists ample evidence that much of the astrology industry knowingly profits off of ignorance, I didn't cite it specifically. Ironically, this was the only uncontested point in my rebuttal, and I got a lot of nodding heads at the decrying of hucksters and con men of the world as it pertains to supernatural things.

I also mentioned the anecdotal joke about how newspapers routinely put the newest intern on the astrology column, because anyone can make stuff up and print it. Likely not true for many publications, but the underlying point stands. I used that to briefly mention how deliberately vague horoscopes are.

I should have also talked about humans' tendency to remember hits and forget misses when they believe in something - one of the basic tenets of astrology's success (and much easier to do when the prediction is vague enough to apply to numerous situations). but there's only so much brain room to remember this stuff when it's spur of the moment.

Like, there are tutorials showing exactly how psychics make themselves seem real. And that process is only a couple small steps removed from the same process astrology uses to help people see what they want to.

Originally posted by Astner

The burden of proof is always on the assert of the claim, regardless of what that claim may be.

This may be technically correct, but in practical terms it doesn't really pay to make people jump through hoops to "disprove" claims that haven't been proven or even shown as plausible in the first place.

Wouldn't you be annoyed if I told you that you had to offer up the evidence to refute phlogiston theory or the geocentric cosmological model? I'm not saying it isn't good to know why these things have been discredited, but to say that we need to be able to disprove them every time they're brought up is, as Sym suggested, idiotically Humean.

Originally posted by Oliver North
evidence of humans seeking patterns in noise is robust for adults.

No doubt. What I was referring to was the phenomena of children believing what they are told about the invisible Princess Alice.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
I mostly struggle with clearly elucidating those points to people who are so set in their beliefs that they'll ignore anything else. Like, after annihilating astrology to a coworker who follows her horoscope, she responded with something akin to "Oh, it's always so interesting to hear your take, but I think there's something to it." Basically, a pat on the head and a casual dismissal of all points.

She's a smart woman, and is happy to discuss these things. But despite never hearing a cogent rebuttal from her on several topics, I've gotten her to consider exactly nothing outside her own belief bubble.

So it's not just that they can come to believe such things, but that they'll stick with those beliefs even against counter-evidence and lacking any logical grounding in them. That, to me, is more mystifying than coming to the beliefs in the first place.

I hear you and agree.

It would be fascinating to study this if it was not such a vicious and damaging tool that churches use against their believers.

I found that some will not even allow their preachers to tell the truth. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I personally would like to hear the arguments for astrology.

Which one?

The one with 12 signs or the one with 13 that was the original but that the West never knew about. LOL.

Regards
DL

Who's DL?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Who's DL?

Eh. Me.

Regards
DL

Are you download?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I hear you and agree.

It would be fascinating to study this if it was not such a vicious and damaging tool that churches use against their believers.

I found that some will not even allow their preachers to tell the truth. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Interesting video, thanks.

L L

No.


---------------------------

Digi

Thanks. Good that you found it interesting.

Regards
DL

How are children talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic? In many ways we never grow up. A more interesting question is why do we tell our children lies?