Why do Christians become Christians?

[RoadRunner79]

Anyone who's ever sat around a table and recounted stories of their youth with family has been in the situation you find interesting.   

You might remember, for example, standing over a dead hog between your uncle, cousin, and grandfather.   You remember their clothes - the time of day, the color and size of the hog.  Your grandmother smiles and brings you a picture of your uncle, cousin, and grandfather all standing over a dead hog just as you described....except you aren't in the picture.  

Are you going to stick with your memory, or "abandon what you know"?  What if you didn't have the picture...but there was no disagreement between the involved parties, that you weren't there?  Gonna stick with your memory, or "abandon what you know"?  It;s a pretty common situation to find oneself in, as a human being, confronting the fallibility of both your memory and your cognitive processes built atop that memory.  Most of us, I hope, just shrug and say "hmn, must've seen that picture, must've heard the story, must be remembering wrong".  

It takes a special kind of stubborn to insist upon the accuracy of ones "knowledge" despite evidence to the contrary.

Who took the picture? 

I don't have a very good memory.   And perhaps this makes me more attune and able to recognize what I do remember and do not.  What is fuzzy, and what is clear.  I also think that it attributes to making me better in my occupation as a troubleshooter of machine controls, because I don't follow a memorized script, but figure it out each time.  However I don't think that I have ever simply inserted an entire story into memory, as you are attempting to describe.  So, I cant relate.  

If this is more common than I thought in others though, perhaps it explains a lot of what I see here.

[Brian37]

Most humans adapt the majority religions of the local societies they get raised in from birth. God belief and religion are not "wired" in us. Our evolutionary drive to survive is, and so is our pattern seeking. Problem is that when we seek patterns we can and do come up with very wrong guesses. That bad logic can lead to successful forming of a group. The ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,0000 years and centered around the false perceptions of their polytheistic gods which were never real.

Religion does create safety in numbers and access to resources and more opportunity at offspring, but the concept itself is a placebo, and god beliefs are merely human's projections of their own qualities, desires, fears and narcissism. Not just Christianity, but all religions in human history.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who took the picture? 

Could've been you.... but that wouldn't matter as to the accuracy of your memory, your knowledge..where you were standing between them.  It is more reasonable than "my knowledge is right and the evidence is wrong", isn't it?  Your mind instantly attached to that possibility, didn't it? If only that were our standard response to all such instances where our knowledge contradicts fact, amiright?

I don't have a very good memory.   And perhaps this makes me more attune and able to recognize what I do remember and do not.  What is fuzzy, and what is clear.  I also think that it attributes to making me better in my occupation as a troubleshooter of machine controls, because I don't follow a memorized script, but figure it out each time.  However I don't think that I have ever simply inserted an entire story into memory, as you are attempting to describe.  So, I cant relate.  

In the example above, you hinted at a situation in which you -didn't- insert an entire story into memory.  There was a plausible explanation for that memory, for that knowledge....it just didn't have anything to do with it's accuracy.  In fact, it would be an explanation -for- it's inaccuracy, and existence...regardless -of- accuracy.  Can we think of some other memories, experiences, or knowledge to which this might be applicable?

If this is more common than I thought in others though, perhaps it explains a lot of what I see here.

It's common to us all, we're habitual ret-conners, but 3/5 for the quip.

[RoadRunner79]

Who took the picture? 

Could've been you.... but that wouldn't matter as to the accuracy of your memory, your knowledge..where you were standing between them.  It is more reasonable than "my knowledge is right and the evidence is wrong", isn't it?  Your mind instantly attached to that possibility, didn't it? If only that were our standard response to all such instances where our knowledge contradicts fact, amiright?

You didn't reference the picture in the original memory in your story.  The picture came in later as evidence, that the memory was false.  However the picture is limited in scope and time; it doesn't mean the memory was false, only that it wasn't captured in the picture.  

I don't have a very good memory.   And perhaps this makes me more attune and able to recognize what I do remember and do not.  What is fuzzy, and what is clear.  I also think that it attributes to making me better in my occupation as a troubleshooter of machine controls, because I don't follow a memorized script, but figure it out each time.  However I don't think that I have ever simply inserted an entire story into memory, as you are attempting to describe.  So, I cant relate.  

In the example above, you hinted at a situation in which you -didn't- insert an entire story into memory.  There was a plausible explanation for that memory, for that knowledge....it just didn't have anything to do with it's accuracy.  In fact, it would be an explanation -for- it's inaccuracy, and existence...regardless -of- accuracy.  Can we think of some other memories, experiences, or knowledge to which this might be applicable?

If this is more common than I thought in others though, perhaps it explains a lot of what I see here.

It's common to us all, we're habitual ret-conners, but 3/5 for the quip.

I don't think that these stories are indicative of what I understand the point you are trying to demonstrate is.   Perhaps you can clarify the claim that you are making, so we can better examine it.  I think that from the beginning and in other threads, I have maintained, that aspects of memory/witness testimony can be inaccurate. I also believe strongly in evaluating all the evidence within the context of it's strength and in regards to agreement or disagreement with other evidence.    I've read a number of the studies provided and what they say, and don't dispute it.  What I do dispute, is that these studies disqualify personal observation and transmission of that information as evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

You didn't reference the picture in the original memory in your story.  The picture came in later as evidence, that the memory was false.  However the picture is limited in scope and time; it doesn't mean the memory was false, only that it wasn't captured in the picture.  

-and here we see, unfortunately, our standard response to a great many of these situations...to imagine any number of ways our "knowledge" could -still be true-....... despite evidence to the contrary.

I don't think that these stories are indicative of what I understand the point you are trying to demonstrate is.   Perhaps you can clarify the claim that you are making, so we can better examine it.  I think that from the beginning and in other threads, I have maintained, that aspects of memory/witness testimony can be inaccurate. I also believe strongly in evaluating all the evidence within the context of it's strength and in regards to agreement or disagreement with other evidence.    I've read a number of the studies provided and what they say, and don't dispute it.  What I do dispute, is that these studies disqualify personal observation and transmission of that information as evidence.

Other than that our memories are fallible, that our "knowledge" can contradict available evidence in relatively normal and common situations, and the ways we handle those situations when they inevitably arise? Nothing. That you saw where this could lead and mounted a defense of a false memory..that only existed in a thought experiment about a picture of a pig, however, might be demonstration of a great deal more.

[RoadRunner79]

You didn't reference the picture in the original memory in your story.  The picture came in later as evidence, that the memory was false.  However the picture is limited in scope and time; it doesn't mean the memory was false, only that it wasn't captured in the picture.  

-and here we see, unfortunately, our standard response to a great many of these situations...to imagine any number of ways our "knowledge" could -still be true-....... despite evidence to the contrary.

Isn't this begging the question? Just because the story you imagined didn't work, don't blame me.

I don't think that these stories are indicative of what I understand the point you are trying to demonstrate is.   Perhaps you can clarify the claim that you are making, so we can better examine it.  I think that from the beginning and in other threads, I have maintained, that aspects of memory/witness testimony can be inaccurate. I also believe strongly in evaluating all the evidence within the context of it's strength and in regards to agreement or disagreement with other evidence.    I've read a number of the studies provided and what they say, and don't dispute it.  What I do dispute, is that these studies disqualify personal observation and transmission of that information as evidence.

Other than that our memories are fallible, that our "knowledge" can contradict available evidence in relatively normal and common situations, and the ways we handle those situations when they inevitably arise?  Nothing.  That you saw where this could lead and mounted a defense of a false memory..that only existed in a thought experiment about a picture of a pig, however, might be demonstration of a great deal more.

I see... is thinking through what you proposed a problem? If I was suppose to start with the assumption that the memory was false, then doesn't that negate the point of you demonstrating it through your story?

Is this why atheist always say that there is no evidence for God.... They just forget it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't this begging the question?

No.

 Just because the story you imagined didn't work, don't blame me.

I'd actually be inclined to thank you, I could have never expected that you would respond the way you did...which turned a thought experiment only meant to show the work-a-day reality of those situations into something more amusing, and much more informative.  

I see... is thinking through what you proposed a problem?   If I was suppose to start with the assumption that the memory was false, then doesn't that negate the point of you demonstrating it through your story?  

Not at all, you provided a great example of what we might do when we don't simply say "hmn, guess I was wrong".  It was insight into the way -you- think, at the very least.  

Is this why atheist always say that there is no evidence for God.... They just forget it?

There are plenty of people who claim to have had an experience of the divine...but fail to recall the details or inaccurately remember what details can be ascertained about their stories.  I think you'll find that most of these people are not atheists....which is unsurprising.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sorry I've taken so long to answer. Had stuff to do, this afternoon. I'll do my best to pick up where we left off.

If I have no recollection, such as the case of amnesia or blackouts, then I would also have no knowledge to argue with.   I also wouldn't have any knowledge to the contrary.  A few weeks ago, I had a pretty bad flu on the weekend.  As a result my memory of the previous week, is fairly sketchy and I don't recall many details.  However, If accused, I would still be pretty confident, that I didn't kill anyone during that time.

Possibly. But I hope you're not ruling out the possibility that you, in a fever-induced haze, had done something that your conscious brain didn't record, when multiple, independently tested lines of evidence point to you.

But that's not really what we're talking about, here. What we're really talking about are stories people tell, which (like a game of Telephone--or Rumor, depending on where you're from) build up over time and acquire "details" from the retelling and from interactions with others, even when the person is trying to truthfully tell the story. It's especially difficult to recall something accurately that occurred years before, even when it was a monumental thing to remember, and you're trying your best. What often occurs is that you pick up "details" that are different from the facts, and your brain assimilates them into the version of the story you "recall", even though much of it is now bogus. You might think you perfectly remember your senior Prom, but I'd be willing to bet that if we went back in a time machine and watched that night, you'd have a terrible time accurately recounting what actually happened, and we'd discover that your brain had taken parts of other stories, or stuff you heard from other people about their Prom nights, and incorporated it into your memory.

It happens in police interviews, where police will (sometimes deliberately) insert details into a story, which the interviewed person then "remembers" a couple hours later into the interview, even when they didn't know it at first and only repeated the detail inserted by the police officers. The cops then use that to say (and testify) that he "admitted" to using a belt to strangle the woman, even though he initially thought she had been killed by a blunt instrument.

In this specific case, the retelling of the legend of Jesus the Rabbi, it's not hard to grasp how in only 5-10 years, enough people telling stories of this wondrous teacher could build up. Judy says, "My uncle Jim says he turned water into wine" to Susan, who says "Judy's uncle Jim saw him turn water into wine at Cana" to Ralph, and then later when Ralph retells the story, he decides to up the ante by saying HE saw (since stories work better in first person) Jesus turn water into wine at Cana... and so on it goes. By the time 20 years have gone by, enough legends have grown up around the man that there's a plethora of versions from which to choose, and people think "we should write all this down with the best coherent story we can".

2000 years later, we have the story of a Prom where space aliens landed and played techno music.

Agreed, the scientist can come to the wrong conclusion.   Should I take these facts, and then conclude that scientific evidence is fallible, and not very good evidence (or not evidence at all)?  

Yes. No. Definitely no.

You apparently skipped over what I wrote. Scientific evidence is indeed fallible, and that's why it must be examined by multiple, unconnected, impartial sources who review the methodology and assumptions and data employed in the determination. The value of the evidence is ONLY so good as the methodology used to produce it, as it's far too easy (as in my examples) for charlatans and those with an agenda or some other motivating factor that does not allow for true impartiality (career promotion based on number of high-profile convictions, for instance, or getting paid extra for evidence that determines they are guilty, as the article reported), which is why Peer Review of scientific papers is critical, and it's not enough just to point to one scientific paper and say "Aha! HERE it is!!" Only when a paper has been reviewed, the methods scrutinized, and the results duplicated (and the useful info cited in other papers) do we consider it worthy of being considered fairly demonstrated.

I can agree with that, and not only that, but scientist not employed by the state, can have motivation to push and agenda..... which is why I look at the arguments being made, and don't paint them all with broad strokes.

I'd be curious to know what agenda you think the other scientists would have.

I often hear this claim made against evolutionary biologists, as if there's some Global Ivory Tower Scientific Conspiracy™ to promote godless evolution. Which is not only ridiculous on its face (because of the extremely competitive nature of science work) but would require coordination between the scientists of nations who dislike one another, or have personal grudges against one another, and yet for NO ONE to break the silence and point to the unifying factor. It's just not real.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Other than that our memories are fallible, that our "knowledge" can contradict available evidence in relatively normal and common situations, and the ways we handle those situations when they inevitably arise?  Nothing.  That you saw where this could lead and mounted a defense of a false memory..that only existed in a thought experiment about a picture of a pig, however, might be demonstration of a great deal more.

I see... is thinking through what you proposed a problem?   If I was suppose to start with the assumption that the memory was false, then doesn't that negate the point of you demonstrating it through your story?  

Is this why atheist always say that there is no evidence for God.... They just forget it?

I can't believe you're not being tongue-in-cheek at this point, man.

He didn't say to start with the assumption that memory is false. He said that memories are fallible and MAY be false, such that when direct evidence contradicts what we think we remember, we should be very careful about saying, "Damn the facts... I KNOW!"

He's trying to explain to you about what I wrote, above, in which I pointed out just one of the ways in which our recollections of details (and even whole stories) can be falsely taken in as True Stories™ in our brain's memory centers.

A classic example is the guy who gets drunk and drives out into the desert to get hypothermic and dehydrated, claims he DEFINITELY saw aliens come down and take him up into his ship, run experiments on him, and then deposit him back in his Chevy pickup in time for morning. He will swear up and down that it's what he saw, but none of us consider it good evidence for alien abductions because we're aware of the many factors that can lead to such a story... or "memory", and it's significantly more likely that he's either full of shit or falsely remembering or plain old hallucinating when he tells that story than it is to say "Well, that means aliens really are coming to probe our buttholes!!"

[The Grand Nudger]

-but it is one way to rationalize how his "knowledge" is still true, despite evidence to the contrary.  

How interesting.