How is it that people can be obliviously gullible when presented with an outrageous claim, without the slightest degree of skepticism, but when presented with something trivially mundane, suddenly they are unreasonably incredulous?

My mother believes the bible is the literal word of God. She believes every story in the text to be 100% true (Ark, talking snake, rib-woman, Jesus miracles, 7 day creation, etc.). But, when I posted a picture of something I built out of wooden pallets on Facebook, she said that I needed to be cautious of pallet wood harboring E Coli. When I explained that I used brand new pallets that were used to ship furniture, and that I sanded, stained, and sealed the wood that I used, she was still worried that they may have been recycled and used previously to carry something from overseas that may be dangerous. ...okay, mother


Granted, there's always a chance for something dangerous to occur, but the mere chance that I could get struck by lightening doesn't compel me to dawn a rubber suit every time it rains. I wonder if believing in God is just one of the things people accept as true because they are generally incapable of forming realistic perceptions of things proportionate to their probability. This would explain why they seem so inconsistent in the vesting of their credulity. Putting religion aside for a moment, this impairment makes it hard to have a productive conversation about anything that is up for debate. I guess it could be viewed that my mom is just gullible on the whole. She believes in God, she believes in disease infested pallets, and her attitude toward things in general is merely the product of an unfiltered mind filled with things that are just allowed to slip in freely. I don't know, but it drives me crazy!

https://youtu.be/TS0CvVE-tAY

It's like when I got to a certain age, people started telling me Santa Clause wasn't real. I was mocked if I told people I still believed in him. That didn't happen with Jesus, so I wasn't browbeaten into not believing in him. It's rather the opposite, with people browbeating others into believing in him if they bring up any doubts.

I saw the picture on FB. I liked the way you had a lounge chair built in at the end.

Your mom's comment about the wood is in stark contrast to the unquestioned belief in so much else. Or maybe it really is consistent since she has been gullible in both instances. Ah well, she is on her path and was given the start that she had. Just be glad that you were more fortunate I suppose.

I think that what I view to be skepticism, is really just the defensive reaction to something she believes but is not willing to reconsider. Critical thought is a habit, it has to be practiced to be useful. Just being skeptical isn't enough. For me, it's a willingness to change my mind, whereas for people like my mother, skepticism is the protection of things that have nestled in there and ought not be removed...

Skepticism is a sign of thinking critically, but without the open-minded part, the ability to practice skepticism alone may deceive people into thinking that they are critical thinkers. When their beliefs are labeled as "Irrational", perhaps the reason they get defensive is because they honestly believe that their way of evaluating ideas is just as rigorous as any other form of inquiry. Since this belief about their habits of mind is also unfiltered, any attempt to address the flaws would be as futile as any other belief one might find a flaw in. It's an impenetrable fortress!

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

Sometimes prior knowledge isn't actual knowledge. A very religous person accepts a variety of things as true, almost a priori, and from their point of view, an extraordinary claim is one that doesn't fit their religious beliefs. However, they also have ordinary prior knowledge, and a claim has to be consistent with that as well...unless it fits with their religious beliefs.

I think most people have difficulty with skepticism. And I don't find atheists to necessarily be all that much better at it than other people.

That correlation does not equal causation is a very difficult concept for most people and we are all guilty of ignoring it from time to time. Peoples' brains are emotionally wired for associative reasoning. It's the default fear mode that kept us alive during much of the prehistoric period. Not all rustling leaves are tigers, but he who run from all rustling leaves lives longer.

We are also wired to prefer connected stories to raw data. We love stories.

The news tends to consist of anecdotal evidence, and associative reasoning told as stories. It's impact is three quarters emotional with a little logical window dressing.

Science/skepticism on the other hand is hard. You have to suppress your emotional response to examine whether the data really supports the conclusion.

(April 7, 2015 at 10:57 am)Jenny A Wrote: And I don't find atheists to necessarily be all that much better at it than other people.

Completely agree.

(April 7, 2015 at 10:57 am)Jenny A Wrote: I think most people have difficulty with skepticism. And I don't find atheists to necessarily be all that much better at it than other people.

I agree. I do think that, belief in God, if placed under proper critical scrutiny, is impossible to maintain (my personal experience). But to your point, knowing that someone identifies themselves as an Atheist tells us next to nothing about the thought process they used to arrive at that conclusion, or any other for that matter. We are all hardwired to be fooled and to believe dumb things.

-its a feature...not a bug, lol.

(April 7, 2015 at 9:48 am)Chad32 Wrote: It's like when I got to a certain age, people started telling me Santa Clause wasn't real. I was mocked if I told people I still believed in him. That didn't happen with Jesus, so I wasn't browbeaten into not believing in him. It's rather the opposite, with people browbeating others into believing in him if they bring up any doubts.

Exactly! It's the difference between somebody who is told that Santa isn't real, and someone who figures it out on their own. My wife thinks I'm crazy for being so careful in my approach to the Santa concept with my son. I never "confirm" anything for him. I just asked him questions, and when he asks me about the nature of Santa, my answers are always prefaced with "I hear that...", but I never tell him anything as if I think it's true. I am impartial. I wanted him to figure it out so when he is challenged, he can offer reasons when others rely on mockery. You know, teaching to fish rather than giving him fish? He figured it out this year when he was 5. The inability among Christians to recognize the parallel between Santa and God makes me think that many of them would still believe in Santa if a trusted authority had not "told them" not to.