Theists, What Would It Take For You To Lose Your Faith?

[robvalue]

Religion feeds off the idea that any state of affairs, any sequence of events, and absolutely no supporting evidence is still good enough to "prove" God exists. So you can prove he exists, whether he does or not, because there is no failure criteria.

Anyone see a problem with this?

It also, of course, "proves" every other God just as well.

[Pizza]

...could you answer in plain English?

For me to accept a naturalistic solution to the mind-body problem, it must show that the physical operations of the brain actually generate subjective experiences and meanings.

What criteria would you judge this explain by and why? What would count as a solved problem here? Do you have a supernaturalistic explanation that solves the mind-body problem? What reasons do you have for thinking the supernaturalistic explanation is likely true?

[Nope]

For me to accept a naturalistic solution to the mind-body problem, it must show that the physical operations of the brain actually generate subjective experiences and meanings.

What criteria would you judge this explain by and why? What would count as a solved problem here? Do you have a supernaturalistic explanation that solves the mind-body problem? What reasons do you have for thinking the supernaturalistic explanation is likely true?

Chadwooter's answer still confuses me. Is he saying that he doesn't believe that thoughts, opinions and emotions originate in the brain? Isn't the mind just another word for the brain?

[Pizza]

What criteria would you judge this explain by and why? What would count as a solved problem here? Do you have a supernaturalistic explanation that solves the mind-body problem? What reasons do you have for thinking the supernaturalistic explanation is likely true?

Chadwooter's answer still confuses me. Is he saying that he doesn't believe that thoughts, opinions and emotions originate in the brain? Isn't the mind just another word for the brain?

In all fairness to Chad that would be begging the question since that's the point at issue. It isn't an analytic truth because there isn't a real clear agreed upon definition of the word mind, which makes it pointless to argue over. Why argue over ill-defined concepts? I don't see how any one can hope to explain something that hasn't been defined well enough to explain. If people can't agree on what they are all trying to explain something is wrong.
People need to come up with better questions if these kind of disputes never end. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

[watchamadoodle]

Chadwooter's answer still confuses me. Is he saying that he doesn't believe that thoughts, opinions and emotions originate in the brain? Isn't the mind just another word for the brain?

In all fairness to Chad that would be begging the question since that's the point at issue. It isn't an analytic truth because there isn't a real clear agreed upon definition of the word mind, which makes it pointless to argue over. Why argue over ill-defined concepts? I don't see how any one can hope to explain something that hasn't been defined well enough to explain. If people can't agree on what they are all trying to explain something is wrong.
People need to come up with better questions if these kind of disputes never end. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

Here is a book on that topic. I've only read the first chapter, because it is a bit over my head. Others might find it interesting:

The authors' controversial approach repudiates the conventional theory of human consciousness as a material epiphenomenon that can be fully explained in terms of physical brain processes and advances the mind as an entity independent of the brain or body. They advance an alternative “transmission” or “filter” theory of the mind-brain relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_Mind

[Davka]

If you read enough stories of de-conversions (and there are lots of them), you will come to the conclusion that no theist has the slightest clue what would cause them to doubt or lose their faith. Prior to the events leading to a crisis of faith, theists cannot conceive of anything that would change their minds. This, I believe, is due to the extreme compartmentalization needed to cling to faith in the face of cognitive dissonance.

A couple of characteristics that seem likely to lead to a loss of faith are Intelligence, Curiosity, and a Love of Learning. Theists who possess these characteristics in abundance will have a harder time denying reality in the long run.

[watchamadoodle]

If you read enough stories of de-conversions (and there are lots of them), you will come to the conclusion that no theist has the slightest clue what would cause them to doubt or lose their faith. Prior to the events leading to a crisis of faith, theists cannot conceive of anything that would change their minds. This, I believe, is due to the extreme compartmentalization needed to cling to faith in the face of cognitive dissonance.

A couple of characteristics that seem likely to lead to a loss of faith are Intelligence, Curiosity, and a Love of Learning. Theists who possess these characteristics in abundance will have a harder time denying reality in the long run.

Some other factors might be:
- disappointment or anger with God (tragedy, unmet needs, etc.)
- discomfort with religious culture

[robvalue]

Also scepticism, and a preference for the real over the comfortable.

[Dystopia]

If you read enough stories of de-conversions (and there are lots of them), you will come to the conclusion that no theist has the slightest clue what would cause them to doubt or lose their faith. Prior to the events leading to a crisis of faith, theists cannot conceive of anything that would change their minds. This, I believe, is due to the extreme compartmentalization needed to cling to faith in the face of cognitive dissonance.

A couple of characteristics that seem likely to lead to a loss of faith are Intelligence, Curiosity, and a Love of Learning. Theists who possess these characteristics in abundance will have a harder time denying reality in the long run.

I think awareness is the most prominent trait. I know atheists who are not particularly smart or gifted or even educated, yet they disbelieve because they see no proof of god - You don't have to be smart to see there's no evidence for god.

I really don't want to take theism to the grounds of mental stress and illnesses because that would have a terrible consequence - Theists who commit crimes in the name of god would be sent to mental institutions and not jail, since you can't be guilty if you possess an incapacitating mental illness.

Personally I don't like putting people into boxes because I know a handful of theists who rationalize their behaviour really well and are much smarter than me, there's still a lot to be explained. There are very smart people who believe in god, people who know all the con and pro arguments, who've read all the anti-god and pro-god books, and still decide that good is a viable hypothesis, though these people are usually not religious but only theists or deists. It's an interesting characteristic to say the least

[Drich]

For God to tell me I had it wrong, and even then I would need to see some ID...