Why do we doubt?

[mcolafson]

I was writing something for my friend, something not connected to religion, I had a block, went online, typed 'why some people never doubt' [the first that came to my mind really], and this article, I find interesting came up... You can read it and we can have a discussion

http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i...o-i-doubt/

“When they (his disciples) asked him (Jesus),‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: To believe in the one he has sent.’” John 6:28-29 NIV. If I am rightly dividing my Greek dictionary, that word “work” means: toil, labor, work.    ""
===
Believing in talking snakes and donkeys was very hard work for me. I'd say being a Christian is very easy until you start reading the Bible

[Doubting Thomas]

Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling. - Journey 4:32

[Tangra]

I would love to respond to this as a non-devout christian, however, these topics always spiral into ad hominem. Why not just strap a theist to a chair and hit him with some words of wisdom on a megaphone

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I would love to respond to this as a non-devout christian, however, these topics always spiral into ad hominem. Why not just strap a theist to a chair and hit him with some words of wisdom on a megaphone

First off, ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. 'I disagree with your point because you're a douchenozzle' is perfectly appropriate if the person to whom you're responding is, in fact, a douchenozzle.

Secondly, tying theists to chair and berating them has been tried. It was called 'The Inquisition'.

Boru

[Alex K]

[Edwardo Piet]

We doubt because we're rational.

I'm more interested in why most people don't doubt and believe in a god.

Here's why I think it is:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...rains.html

Insights from neuroscience suggest that the brain tends to automatically accept rather than reject beliefs, oftentimes independent of how logical they might be.
[...]
elieved in a number of statements. Sentences ranged from the very simple and fact-based (California is larger than Rhode Island), to the abstract and highly subjective (God probably does not exist). The data revealed activation of distinct but sometimes overlapping brain areas during belief versus disbelief conditions.
Additionally, the scans clearly showed something that was more straightforward. Brain activation, overall, was much greater and persisted longer during states of disbelief. This is important because neuroscience has long shown that greater brain activity requires more mental resources, of which there is a limited supply. A cognitive process that demands little mental resources, such as believing, is less work for the brain and therefore favored. This concept was summed up nicely in a 2015 NewScientist cover story on the science of beliefs, which stated, “Harris’ results were widely interpreted as further confirmation that the default state of the human brain is to accept. Belief comes easily; doubt takes effort.”

If I remember correctly the philosopher Spinoza also reckonened that belief was the default state.

It also explains why people often jump to conclusions and make assumptions. It's easier because it's useful for people to jump to conclusions like that.

So to doubt something we need a reason. I.E. we want to be rational, we care about the truth, etc. Otherwise the default state is to jump to conclusions.

Thankfully some of us are naturally more rational than the average person.

[Tangra]

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. I just think the methodology on atheist forums more often (perhaps subconsciously) centers on "proving" something.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

---

I would love to respond to this as a non-devout christian, however, these topics always spiral into ad hominem. Why not just strap a theist to a chair and hit him with some words of wisdom on a megaphone

First off, ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. 'I disagree with your point because you're a douchenozzle' is perfectly appropriate if the person to whom you're responding is, in fact, a douchenozzle.

Secondly, tying theists to chair and berating them has been tried. It was called 'The Inquisition'.

Boru

You mean like a hypocrite? That's really the only acceptable form of ad hominem in my book. Someone who preaches something they don't practice.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

---

We doubt because we're rational.

I'm more interested in why most people don't doubt and believe in a god.

Here's why I think it is:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...rains.html

Insights from neuroscience suggest that the brain tends to automatically accept rather than reject beliefs, oftentimes independent of how logical they might be.
[...]
elieved in a number of statements. Sentences ranged from the very simple and fact-based (California is larger than Rhode Island), to the abstract and highly subjective (God probably does not exist). The data revealed activation of distinct but sometimes overlapping brain areas during belief versus disbelief conditions.
Additionally, the scans clearly showed something that was more straightforward. Brain activation, overall, was much greater and persisted longer during states of disbelief. This is important because neuroscience has long shown that greater brain activity requires more mental resources, of which there is a limited supply. A cognitive process that demands little mental resources, such as believing, is less work for the brain and therefore favored. This concept was summed up nicely in a 2015 NewScientist cover story on the science of beliefs, which stated, “Harris’ results were widely interpreted as further confirmation that the default state of the human brain is to accept. Belief comes easily; doubt takes effort.”

If I remember correctly the philosopher Spinoza also reckonened that belief was the default state.

It also explains why people often jump to conclusions and make assumptions. It's easier because it's useful for people to jump to conclusions like that.

So to doubt something we need a reason. I.E. we want to be rational, we care about the truth, etc. Otherwise the default state is to jump to conclusions.

Thankfully some of us are naturally more rational than the average person.

I agree with all but the last sentence. I wish the average person be rational.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't say the average person was rational. Read it again.

[chimp3]

Cats doubt. Racoons doubt. Deer doubt. We like to refer to animals doubting as wariness. Doubt is inate. Faith goes against nature.

[Edwardo Piet]

Belief without evidence is natural. Jumping to conclusions based on mere primpitive outdated caveman pattern recognition is natural.

It's natural for us to be irrational enough to believe in bullshit religion. Yes the religions themselves are not natural but the irrationality to believe in them is.

Doubt is natural too but doubt is more effortful. We have to have a reason to doubt something but jumping to conclusions and using our primitive pattern recognition is automatic.

Besides, the article I linked notes that neuroscience supports this view.