Religious Skepticism

[Ronin]

I am interested in what methods religious adherents use to determine the validity/invalidity of any claim.

What elements must be present, what actual level of critical analysis and empirical evidence is required for you (a believer in religious claims) so that you would believe more in a claim (any claim) than disbelieve in it?

Do religious adherents simply believe in any claim at face value once it is made or is there ever some skepticism before the claim is accepted or rejected?

Please feel free to offer anecdotes and personal opinion.

(An example would be the rejection of LDS religious claims in favor of Roman Catholic claims as to the receipt of divine messages, etc.)

Thanks for any insight offered.

:wave:

[Tom Sawyer]

In about 90% of the cases, it's because they were told these specific claims while they were children and simply accepted them as the truth and never gave the question of their validity much thought beyond that.

In the other 10% of the cases where somebody actually chose to buy into one of these claims, I'm befuddled as to the reasoning.

[Ronin]

Well, indoctrination certainly plays a part of human perception and world view.

That said, I was really looking for a religious adherent (Christian, Muslim, Jew, mystic, etc.) to give me some insight into how they address the issues in the OP.

:)

[Ronin]

Now I know that there are a couple of died in the wool Christians, Muslims, Jews and mystics presenting all sorts of opinions here at IIDB...I'd really like some insight into this issue from you.

:wave:

[Deus Ex]

Good luck. The hardcore theist rarely respond to these threads. As a former Southern Baptist, I was taught that skepticism comes from Satan. Most theist probably don't want to examine their beliefs too closely.

[Ronin]

Good luck. The hardcore theist rarely respond to these threads. As a former Southern Baptist, I was taught that skepticism comes from Satan. Most theist probably don't want to examine their beliefs too closely.

I know it's going to be tough, but I am really interested.

It doesn't even have to be an examination of their religious beliefs...just how they come to conclusions about any claim at all.

I am interested in what methods religious adherents use to determine the validity/invalidity of any claim.

What elements must be present, what actual level of critical analysis and empirical evidence is required for you (a believer in religious claims) so that you would believe more in a claim (any claim) than disbelieve in it?

Do religious adherents simply believe in any claim at face value once it is made or is there ever some skepticism before the claim is accepted or rejected?

Please feel free to offer anecdotes and personal opinion.

More examples:

"I have a blue pill that I've worked on that will completely cure cancer".

"I was abducted by an advanced society of humans who have developed time travel".

What steps would the religious adherent take to assess the veracity of the claims?

Would there be any skepticism at all?

What would support the skepticism?

Would the claim be accepted as truthful, false or unknown initially?

[Ronin]

Come on, there has to be one or two of you out there promoting religious claims consistently that can give some insight into this issue.

:)

[fatpie42]

Good luck. The hardcore theist rarely respond to these threads. As a former Southern Baptist, I was taught that skepticism comes from Satan. Most theist probably don't want to examine their beliefs too closely.

If you check out the 'Dispatches' programme 'In God's name' on youtube you'll see a few points when Christians are asked about their 'evidence'. They become rather stumped on the question of the age of the Earth. In the end though they tend to express uncertainty on the actual truth, but express grave doubts on anything which differs from their assumptions.

Not that different from the rest of us really. I think we all consider some debates more important than others. And it must be remembered that when it comes to religious claims there's no shortage of writers to tell them what they want to hear.

[Ierrellus]

What is the evidence for beliefs? Whatever trips your endorphins and cajoles your immune system into operating at maximum capacity. Many will claim experience provides the evidence, even if others have not experienced the same thing. Positive thinking can affect one's endocrinal homeostasis, giving the brain the notion that all is well. So can prayers and placebos. One can be positive about negative things, such as the picnic socials that accompanied hangings in the Am. old West.
In short, any belief one finds self-substantiating, as giving meaning and purpose to existence, becomes experientially valid for the particular believer. Should I be the one who kicks the crutch away from the cripple? No way! My crutch may be next!!!

[Ronin]

That seems more to be a "whatever works for you" philosophy, Ierrellus, and not really an examination of the actual evidence which is a different topic altogether.

Here is the OP again:

I am interested in what methods religious adherents use to determine the validity/invalidity of any claim.

What elements must be present, what actual level of critical analysis and empirical evidence is required for you (a believer in religious claims) so that you would believe more in a claim (any claim) than disbelieve in it?

Do religious adherents simply believe in any claim at face value once it is made or is there ever some skepticism before the claim is accepted or rejected?

and further expressed:

More examples:

"I have a blue pill that I've worked on that will completely cure cancer".

"I was abducted by an advanced society of humans who have developed time travel".

What steps would the religious adherent take to assess the veracity of the claims?

Would there be any skepticism at all?

What would support the skepticism?

Would the claim be accepted as truthful, false or unknown initially?

Is there such a thing as a religious adherent who is skeptical of any claim?

If so, what standard of critical analysis is used and acceptable to reach a conclusion that rejects the claim?

Note: This isn't about crutches or what may or may not "work" for people.

[Salam]

As a Muslim, I believe claims from the Quran more than claims from the Sunna/Hadith, or any other Mullah. What makes me believe in claims presented by Mullahs? empirical evidence or logic.

[Ronin]

As a Muslim, I believe claims from the Quran more than claims from the Sunna/Hadith, or any other Mullah. What makes me believe in claims presented by Mullahs? empirical evidence or logic.

Very good, now we're getting somewhere:

Can you present some of this empirical evidence/logic and articulate how the claimed evidence supports your view of what is presented in the Quran more than the Sunna/Hadith or any "other" Mullah?

What makes you skeptical of the other Mullah's claims?

Can you quantify/qualify the value of your empirical evidence in contrast to the claims of other Mullahs?

What are the differences in acceptable levels of "evidence" between the claims found in the Bible with the claims found in the Quran?

:wave:

[Ierrellus]

Ronin,
No. Individualistic needs require individual supplies of necessities. This is not relativism. And, too, if you fail to see the biological interpretations of these needs, you can offer no solutions that are applicable to biological entities such as I. Apparently, you seem to want some dead-end, division discussion as opposed to one that could address common human needs and aspirations.
I am a Christian, but in no sense of advocating them vs us idolatries. Does your discussion have room for real rigor?

[Adonael]

I am interested in what methods religious adherents use to determine the validity/invalidity of any claim.

What elements must be present, what actual level of critical analysis and empirical evidence is required for you (a believer in religious claims) so that you would believe more in a claim (any claim) than disbelieve in it?

Do religious adherents simply believe in any claim at face value once it is made or is there ever some skepticism before the claim is accepted or rejected?

Please feel free to offer anecdotes and personal opinion.

(An example would be the rejection of LDS religious claims in favor of Roman Catholic claims as to the receipt of divine messages, etc.)

Thanks for any insight offered.

:wave:



I take it that by "invalidity/validity' you do not mean the structural validity of any said argument?

[iLoveKnowledge]

Well, if someone claims this god or that god told them to do something, I'd first have to measure that up against what I know about the deity in question, be it Zeus, Innana, Kali, or Allah. This seems easier to do with the Old Gods, as they tend to have distinct personalities of their own, and from what I've been told, their standards for worship and what they expect of their followers can also differ. Particularly now since burnt offerings of a whole ram or some such aren't the best way to go.

Based on that, I now have to decide if the claim is something the god is likely to ask/order in all seriousness, if it could be a joke, or if the person is just using belief in a deity as an excuse. Because the gods I'm familiar with can sometimes have an odd, if not warped, idea of what passes for humor, I have to be pretty careful in making my choice. But I also think they rely on reason much as we do, which adds another factor to consider.

That's just from a religious/spiritual point of view. If someone were to make an outlandish claim about human biology and say "this god said it was so, and that makes it true!" I could look up information in a book or online and find out for sure. Same with history and other topics. I tend to believe humans, or at least our ancestors, had been walking the planet before the gods showed up anyway, so any claims of "you were created by god" sound silly.

'Course I also think the gods tend to leave us to our own devices a good amount of the time and don't always poke their noses in, so I guess I'm not the best person to ask. Hope that helped a bit.

[Ronin]

Ronin,
No. Individualistic needs require individual supplies of necessities. This is not relativism. And, too, if you fail to see the biological interpretations of these needs, you can offer no solutions that are applicable to biological entities such as I. Apparently, you seem to want some dead-end, division discussion as opposed to one that could address common human needs and aspirations.
I am a Christian, but in no sense of advocating them vs us idolatries. Does your discussion have room for real rigor?

It really doesn't infer an us vs. them idolatry in the least.

This is inconsistent with the evidentiary needs we apply to every other aspect of our lives.

What makes religious claims different from factual ones?

:cool:

[Ronin]

Well, if someone claims this god or that god told them to do something, I'd first have to measure that up against what I know about the deity in question, be it Zeus, Innana, Kali, or Allah. This seems easier to do with the Old Gods, as they tend to have distinct personalities of their own, and from what I've been told, their standards for worship and what they expect of their followers can also differ. Particularly now since burnt offerings of a whole ram or some such aren't the best way to go.

Based on that, I now have to decide if the claim is something the god is likely to ask/order in all seriousness, if it could be a joke, or if the person is just using belief in a deity as an excuse. Because the gods I'm familiar with can sometimes have an odd, if not warped, idea of what passes for humor, I have to be pretty careful in making my choice. But I also think they rely on reason much as we do, which adds another factor to consider.

That's just from a religious/spiritual point of view. If someone were to make an outlandish claim about human biology and say "this god said it was so, and that makes it true!" I could look up information in a book or online and find out for sure. Same with history and other topics. I tend to believe humans, or at least our ancestors, had been walking the planet before the gods showed up anyway, so any claims of "you were created by god" sound silly.

'Course I also think the gods tend to leave us to our own devices a good amount of the time and don't always poke their noses in, so I guess I'm not the best person to ask. Hope that helped a bit.

Maybe.

The concept of creators emanated from basic human biology. The first started with female creators (Mothers) which then later morphed into warrior male gods (Fathers) in an attempt to relive the innocence of birth reliance upon mother suppliers and later father suppliers.

They do not prove God(s)ess(es) exist...they just reflect the Freudian application of the human birth, life, death models.

Humanism is the overarching appreciation of such methods and applications that make our one life understandable and motivates us to greater knowledge and care for one another.

...um...in my view, naturally.

:wave:

Still, I wonder at religious adherents and their application of common modes of evidence/knowledge contrasted by imaginary claims.

How do they dismiss equally unfalsifiable religious claims?

:huh:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

In about 90% of the cases, it's because they were told these specific claims while they were children and simply accepted them as the truth and never gave the question of their validity much thought beyond that.

In the other 10% of the cases where somebody actually chose to buy into one of these claims, I'm befuddled as to the reasoning.

Apologists use lots of logic to come up with astonishing arguments to keep believing what they do. Just take a look at Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/) or CARM (http://www.carm.org/). For example, on Catholic Answers, look up "Buddha" or "Luther", and you'll get a big scoop of what I'm saying.