In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[The Architect Of Fate]

Scroll back.

There is nothing you have present that has been much better or has not been dealt with. Just keep digging Johnny .

[John 6IX Breezy]

No it isn't. It's a subject still fiercely debated. 

Fiercely lol?

Dunning-Kruger is nothing more than pop psychology for the chronically online. It is barely a footnote in anybody's psychological career. It doesn't even get a proper mention in any psych 101 course. The last time I heard of it was during peak replication crisis, when everybody heard it didn't make the cut. And that's it; everyone's life went on, except for a handful of folks still kicking a dead horse, you guys included.

[arewethereyet]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Fiercely lol?

Dunning-Kruger is nothing more than pop psychology for the chronically online. It is barely a footnote in anybody's psychological career. It doesn't even get a proper mention in any psych 101 course. The last time I heard of it was during peak replication crisis, when everybody heard it didn't make the cut. And that's it; everyone's life went on, except for a handful of folks still kicking a dead horse, you guys included.

I love how you can make such delusionally confident statement no matter how out of step they are with reality ......lol

Guess anything to preserve your ego ....lol

Keep digging Johnny keep digging ......lol

[Sheldon]

Impressive. So far, John has managed to cite two pop-sci articles as if they were anywhere near the calibre of peer-reviewed publications.

Scroll back.

John, you made an asinine sweeping claim, no credible psychologist would deal in such risible hyperbole, everyone who can still bebothered to read what you post is laughing, loudly. 

So unless you have a citation that can unequivocally demonstrate that "most people with a degree in psychology, KNOW the Dunning-Kruger isn't real", then you're simply adding new layers of embarrassment, to what was by any standards, a cringeworthy claim. 

That you don't seem aware of any of this, does rather dent your posturing as a psychologist of any worth...bro...

Though given I read your bombast claiming to have falsified the theory of evolution, the only real surprise is you don't seem to have learned your lesson in all that time. 

Why not just leave the grandiloquent posturing alone, and tell us all why you think the Jesus character in the bible is a deity, seriously after this display how bad could it be.

[Sheldon]

No it isn't. It's a subject still fiercely debated. 

Fiercely lol?

Dunning-Kruger is nothing more than pop psychology for the chronically online. It is barely a footnote in anybody's psychological career. It doesn't even get a proper mention in any psych 101 course. The last time I heard of it was during peak replication crisis, when everybody heard it didn't make the cut. And that's it; everyone's life went on, except for a handful of folks still kicking a dead horse, you guys included.

I am dubious, not least because several credible sources suggest otherwise, but this is not the point, since none of that is what you claimed:

John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

"most people with a psychology degree know the dunning-kruger effect doesn't exist."

Moving the goal posts now, won't make that claim any less cringeworthy. It doesn't need to be hotly debated, for your claim to be risibly embarrassing hyperbole. That you don't understand this is pretty telling.

[Alan V]

Beliefs aren't simply isolated bits of information that one agrees with. They are integrated and predictive mental models of the world.

And so, why do Christians believe in Jesus? For the same reasons anybody believes anything: Because the proposition integrates well within their broader web of beliefs and reduces it's entropy. In other words, because it makes sense to them.

I quoted this early post from John to address another point about Christianity.  Christianity is most obviously a story with different mutually supporting assumptions, and that story appeals to a lot of people.

However, that story can't be a "predictive mental model" (as he claimed) unless it also has roots in the real world.

For instance, the Christian story encourages prayer, but prayer doesn't work -- not when tested statistically.  Proof by selected instances is not really proof.

Similarly if science says the universe and the earth are much older than the Bible claims, because it has real evidence to the contrary, then the Bible was proven wrong and people shouldn't count on it.

Further, if evolutionary theory is correct, and it's upheld by an amazing array of evidence, then there was no fall of man and no need for Jesus to redeem mankind.

So there are at least two other reasons why people believe in the Christian story: They are otherwise poorly-informed and they can't easily admit when they were wrong, once they are committed to Christianity.

People believe in Christianity, not "for the same reasons anybody believes anything" as John claimed, but because they reject the evidence against the Christian story.

Of course all of this is obvious to atheists who prioritize evidence, just not to Christians like John.  And so we go around and around with him.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Beliefs aren't simply isolated bits of information that one agrees with. They are integrated and predictive mental models of the world.

And so, why do Christians believe in Jesus? For the same reasons anybody believes anything: Because the proposition integrates well within their broader web of beliefs and reduces it's entropy. In other words, because it makes sense to them.

More rubbish

[Sheldon]

Beliefs aren't simply isolated bits of information that one agrees with. They are integrated and predictive mental models of the world.

And so, why do Christians believe in Jesus? For the same reasons anybody believes anything: Because the proposition integrates well within their broader web of beliefs and reduces it's entropy. In other words, because it makes sense to them.

More rubbish

In it's broadest sense, a belief is the affirmation of a claim that something exists, or is true. When we talk about a belief making sense, to me that would have to involve more than a subjective rationalisation. After all a flat earth makes sense to people who believe the earth is flat. 

Now, while an individual is free to set as low a bar for credulity as one wishes, even one that denies objective facts and reality, then they clearly are investing bias, rather than seeking the truth. Existence reflects objective reality, it is in the definition of the word, so to claim something exists, then simultaneously admit it cannot be evidenced in any objectively verifiable way, is too obvious a contradiction for me to lend it any credence.  

Note, this is not, or at least need not, involve me making a contrary claim, as John and countless other religious apologists have tried to claim. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is literally the absence of theism, and nothing more. Though individuals who happen to be atheists can of course go farther, but I have found that most I have encountered, do not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

However, that story can't be a "predictive mental model" (as he claimed) unless it also has roots in the real world.

...

People believe in Christianity, not "for the same reasons anybody believes anything" as John claimed, but because they reject the evidence against the Christian story.

Of course all of this is obvious to atheists who prioritize evidence, just not to Christians like John. 

There are two conversations here, the cognitive structure and it's external validity, with prediction bridging the two.

When I talked about predictive mental models, I meant explanations and expectations about reality. The brain doesn't care about representing the truth of reality, it cares about functioning in it. And all of your beliefs serve a function, whether it is instrumental, symbolic, social, and so on.

Now, regarding evidence: Evidence doesn't exist in a one-to-one relationship with truth. It never points to a single definite conclusion. Instead, it points in all directions, and can support multiple overlapping theories. It requires argumentation and interpretation to make a case for one exclusive view.