Teaching evolution can make creationists believe in creation more strongly

[Oolon Colluphid]

I finally got around to looking through another of the papers in that Integrative and Comparative Biology edition that focused on teaching evolution (where the 'evograms' paper came from).

And it's a curious thing, because according to the study, doing a course on evolution does seem to help undecideds decide... but not always in the direction you (or the authors) would expect.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 2008 48(2): 164-174

Teaching evolution: challenging religious preconceptions

Eric C. Lovely and Linda C. Kondrick

(Extra para breaks added as usual.)

Synopsis Teaching college students about the nature of science should not be a controversial exercise. College students are expected to distinguish between astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemy, evolution and creationism.

In practice, however, the conflict between creationism and the nature of science may create controversy in the classroom, even walkouts, when the subject of evolution is raised.

The authors have grappled with the meaning of such behaviors. They surveyed 538 students in a public, liberal arts college. Pre/post course surveys were analyzed to track changes in student responses to questions that were either consistent or inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution after a semester of instruction in a college biology or zoology course in which evolution was taught.

Many students who were initially undecided about issues regarding evolution had shifted in their viewpoints by the end of the course.

It was found that more education about the evidence for and the mechanics of evolutionary processes did not necessarily move students toward a scientific viewpoint.

The authors also discovered a ‘‘wedge’’ effect among students who were undecided about questions pertaining to human ancestry at the beginning of the course. About half of these students shifted to a scientific viewpoint at the end of the course; the other half shifted toward agreement with statements consistent with creationism.
The pre–post test surveys consisted of 15 questions of two types: student beliefs and student understandings.
Results
Students (N=538) were asked to respond to identical sets of questions regarding the theory of evolution before and at the end of a semester course.
Uncontroversial statements
When asked about the nature of science or the process of evolution, student responses show the greatest shift in responses toward an understanding of the process of evolution.
Young-earth statements
When asked to respond to statements concerning a young-earth there is some shift toward a scientific view.

[...]

Figure 9A shows student responses for the statement, ‘‘The earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.’’ [...] After the course, 40 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 16 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘The earth is too young for evolution to have occurred.’’ [...] After the course, 10 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 20 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’

[...]

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on an about four or five billion year old earth.’’ [...] After the course, 23 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 30 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’
Human origins statements
The most controversial statements, those dealing with human origins exhibit the most persistent creationist views. Some students that responded ‘‘don’t know’’ at the beginning of the course changed toward a creationist view and others turned away from a creationist view.

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘Fish and mammals shared a common ancestor at some point in the past.’’ [...] After the course, 29 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 30 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘Human beings evolved from earlier species of animals.’’ [...] After the course, 33 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 60 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘Man, gorilla, and chimpanzee shared a common ancestor.’’ [...] After the course, 31 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 48 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’

... student responses for the statement, ‘‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.’’ [...] After the course, 46 students switched from ‘‘agree’’ to ‘‘disagree’’ and 41 switched from ‘‘disagree’’ to ‘‘agree’’
Discussion
It was not expected that students would shift in their perception of their own religiosity over the semester. Nor was there any overt or hidden agenda to influence students’ religious identity per se. It was assumed that this variable would remain rather static. It most clearly did not.

[...]

It was assumed by the researchers that students who held scientific views (responded correctly to questions regarding the understanding of evolutionary theory) at the beginning of the course, would assimilate the course material and retain those views at the end of the course (Posner et al. 1982, 1992). However, depending upon which of the four most controversial statements, from 31% to 48% actually changed from a correct response to an undecided or even an incorrect response. In regard to the question of man, gorilla, and chimpanzee sharing a common ancestor, 31% moved away from the correct response. In regard to the creation of human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 48% of those who originally responded correctly had shifted to an undecided or incorrect response.

[...]

It was hoped that the majority of students who were undecided about the facts of evolution would either assimilate or accommodate the new information on the theory of evolution, and give correct answers at the end of the course. Instead, the authors discovered a ‘‘wedge effect’’ among students undergoing conceptual change as they encountered information
that required them to refine their schemas regarding the most controversial questions. Almost 40% remained on the fence. Of those who did not remain undecided, half shifted toward a scientifically correct response, while the other half shifted toward statements inconsistent with an understanding of the theory of evolution.

It was expected that some students who held creationist views at the beginning of the course would not be able to assimilate the new information, but would lean toward the undecided category as they tried to accommodate evidence throughout the course. Such was not entirely the case. Results indicated that these patterns were in evidence when the questions did not involve human ancestry. When humans were involved, there were often nearly
as many students with correct scientific beliefs precourse who switched to incorrect or uncertain responses after the course as there were students with incorrect beliefs who switched to the correct answer or an uncertain response.

The greatest movement by far was among students who were uncertain about statements pertaining to human evolution prior to the course. Most (60%) of these students did not remain undecided, but they were equally likely to move toward incorrect as toward correct responses. This was not true. It was evident from these findings that over the course of the semester students when confronted with conflicts between scientific interpretations and religious beliefs do tend to move away from noncommittal and toward definite choices. However, those choices do not necessarily reflect the logic presented by the instructor in favor of the scientific viewpoint.
Conclusion

... education in the principles of the theory of evolution did not necessarily insure that students will accommodate that theory in the schemas that they accept to be true.

... students were more likely to agree with statements regarding evolution if human evolution from other life forms was not stated or implied.

... Questions that involved human ancestry had a wedge effect among undecided students. In regards to statements involving human ancestry, roughly equal numbers of students who responded ‘‘don’t know’’ at the beginning of the course changed toward a creationist view, while the other half moved toward an evolutionary view.

So in short, if you want students to accept evolution, you need to teach it while steering clear of human evolution. Including that can do as much harm as good.

:confused: :bang:

[Lisa0315]

In my current condition of trying to quit cigarettes, I do not want to argue about this, okay?

I merely want to support the OP and state that while learning about evolution certainly changed how I felt about evolution and the Genesis creation story, it did not alter my belief that God still "created". I simply define "create" differently now.

I think that many scientists want to imply that evolution, whether micro, or macro, completely destroys the possibility of a creator. However, from what I can tell, science makes no statement in regards to any deity whatsoever. It neither supports nor discredits the idea of a deity, creator or otherwise. Science is either oblivious or neutral to the idea of a deity. I am not sure which term is best.

Lisa

[Oolon Colluphid]

In my current condition of trying to quit cigarettes, I do not want to argue about this, okay?
Then don't :dunno: :p :)

[DMB]

Religious indoctrination goes very deep, particularly if it starts early.

In addition, while this is presented as a group of lab rats (students) exposed to the course work and only the course work, you can imagine that behind the scenes they were exposed to a lot more. Perhaps people told them they couldn't be good Christians if they accepted evolution. Perhaps they were inundated with creationist materials.

We also don't know how good the teaching was in the first place.

[Oolon Colluphid]

In light of your withdrawal symptoms Lisa, please don't feel obliged to respond here -- or even to read any further :)

But for the sake of any lurkers etc...







I think that many scientists want to imply that evolution, whether micro, or macro, completely destroys the possibility of a creator.
It just makes a creator superfluous. Having God use evolution as his chosen method of making living things is like saying Santa delivers presents to 'really', but his chosen method is by having parents do it. Or that Thor makes thunder, and he does so by atmospheric discharges of electricity.

A quick waft of Ockham's razor suggests, not that God does not exist, but just that he's not needed: the explanation works just as well without him as with him.

Plus, of course, evolution cuts away a main strand -- perhaps the only plausible strand (complex 'designoid' objects) -- of evidence for God's existence... and remember, the burden of proof lies on the proponent of an existence claim.

However, from what I can tell, science makes no statement in regards to any deity whatsoever. It neither supports nor discredits the idea of a deity, creator or otherwise. Science is either oblivious or neutral to the idea of a deity. I am not sure which term is best.
Strictly yes, but not entirely. Bearing in mind the location of the burden of proof, science can offer indications of how probable God's existence is.

The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable is not felt, by any reasonable person, to be the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument. None of us feels an obligation to disprove any of the millions of far-fetched things that a fertile or facetious imagination might dream up. I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.

All of us feel entitled to express extreme scepticism to the point of outright disbelief - except that in the case of unicorns, tooth fairies and the gods of Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Vikings, there is (nowadays) no need to bother. In the case of the Abrahamic God, however, there is a need to bother, because a substantial proportion of the people with whom we share the planet do believe strongly in his existence. Russell's teapot demonstrates that the ubiquity of belief in God, as compared with belief in celestial teapots, does not shift the burden of proof in logic, although it may seem to shift it as a matter of practical politics. That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.

[Lisa0315]

Religious indoctrination goes very deep, particularly if it starts early.

In addition, while this is presented as a group of lab rats (students) exposed to the course work and only the course work, you can imagine that behind the scenes they were exposed to a lot more. Perhaps people told them they couldn't be good Christians if they accepted evolution. Perhaps they were inundated with creationist materials.

We also don't know how good the teaching was in the first place.

Very true, DMB. Very good points, there.

Lisa

[Ronin]

In my current condition of trying to quit cigarettes, I do not want to argue about this, okay?

I merely want to support the OP and state that while learning about evolution certainly changed how I felt about evolution and the Genesis creation story, it did not alter my belief that God still "created". I simply define "create" differently now.

I think that many scientists want to imply that evolution, whether micro, or macro, completely destroys the possibility of a creator. However, from what I can tell, science makes no statement in regards to any deity whatsoever. It neither supports nor discredits the idea of a deity, creator or otherwise. Science is either oblivious or neutral to the idea of a deity. I am not sure which term is best.

Lisa

That's right, in my view.

Science makes no assertions regarding untestable magical/supernatural beings like leprechauns, invisible wish granting dragons, Binky the Creator Space Clown of Universe *8*, etc.

Evolution doesn't completely destroy the possibility of a creator because it makes no assertion regarding a "first" cause or if one is even necessary at all.

It also makes no assertion regarding the identity of any such "first" cause (if one exists) or if it would even be sensible to call it a god.

If the stated rule is that complexity always requires a creator then you either have to violate the rule (rendering it invalid) or accept that any possible creator must also require a creator who must also require a creator...and so on.

As for specific creator God(s)ess(es) articulated in texts by human religious adherents, they are discredited due to a lack of empirical evidence for any of them.

I am always open to new discoveries and remain a strong atheist regarding the purported God(s)ess(es) until they are proven to exist and not merely accepted upon "faith".

ronin (http://www.huliq.com/62875/ronin-alternate-control-embryonic-stem-cells)

PS Don't argue with me, I'm here to just tell you how it is.

[tjakey]

Why should it come as a surprise that a single course will probably not undo years of religious indoctrination inflicted since early childhood? A deep rooted god belief is not going to go away as the result of one class.

Evolution is how biology works and there is nothing within the framework of evolution that requires a supernatural supplement. I guess, since most of the people in this country are believers in various woo and since a large percentage of those actually understand that evolution is how biology works, they make the woo fit in there somehow.

[Oolon Colluphid]

In addition, while this is presented as a group of lab rats (students) exposed to the course work and only the course work, you can imagine that behind the scenes they were exposed to a lot more. Perhaps people told them they couldn't be good Christians if they accepted evolution. Perhaps they were inundated with creationist materials.

We also don't know how good the teaching was in the first place.
From the paper:
Concerns for further study

This was an action study rather than an experimental study. Actions studies are studies conducted by practitioners for the purpose of improving their own practice in a systematic way (Zubber-Skerritt 1992). These studies are conducted in authentic, rather than controlled classroom environments. The disadvantage of this approach is that there may have been confounding variables that were not controlled. The validity of the study, however, is enhanced in that the patterns and effects observed were found across a variety of random classroom settings.

In this action study, no attempt was made to standardize the way in which the theory of evolution was presented by the five different instructors. Neither were instructor effects were not taken into account in this study. Nonetheless, results were found to be remarkably similar to those found by Kondrick and Lovely (2005) in an earlier pilot study in which students were taught by only one instructor.

[...]

Also, the researchers would like to know how much students were influenced by outside sources who had a vested interest in influencing the perceptions of students in a course in which they would be taught evolution. It has been suggested to the authors that students in these courses may be actively recruited by members of the community who hold an antievolution bias. Such possibilities should be investigated to better understand the shifts in pre–post test responses observed in the present study.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Why should it come as a surprise that a single course will probably not undo years of religious indoctrination inflicted since early childhood? A deep rooted god belief is not going to go away as the result of one class.
It wasn't meant to undo. It's the patterns of shifts that occurred that are interesting... especially the fact that, of the initially fence-sitters, just as many shifted towards creation as went the other way, especially when human evolution was taught. (Which confirms my long-held belief that human specialness is the cornerstone of creationism. All other life can be as single created kind that's just microevolved a bit, provided humans are specially created.)

[tjakey]

Well Oolon, one of the most puzzling things about us humans is just how full of ourselves we like to be; god's special creation, center of the cosmos, "intelligent," children of god and living for ever...

We are pretty fond of ourselves.

[Garnet]

That and understanding evolution is hard. Believing myths that you've been spoon fed since childhood is much easier.

[Notta]

I took advanced biology classes in high school and MAJORED in microbiology in college, and I was STILL a creationist for decades after that.

I learned the stuff, set it aside in my mental 'science' storage locker, and ignored it when praying and reading the Bible. It wasn't until I started looking at the Bible with a critical mind that the 'science' information suddenly seemed to make more sense than an old guy on an ark with juvenile dinosaurs.....

[Puck]

I also think that those with religious leanings/indoctrination, will, when faced with the facts, often panic a bit and learn further towards the more known, and thus comfortable, religious explanation. Who knows how they will themselves 'evolved' over more time, though? Once you get knowledge in your brain, you're rather stuck with it, no matter how you insist it's not there. ;)

[Lisa0315]

I also think that those with religious leanings/indoctrination, will, when faced with the facts, often panic a bit and learn further towards the more known, and thus comfortable, religious explanation. Who knows how they will themselves 'evolved' over more time, though? Once you get knowledge in your brain, you're rather stuck with it, no matter how you insist it's not there. ;)

That is kind of what happened to me. The idea that I would EVER consider Genesis a parable rather than the literal truth is definitely an evolutionary, perhaps, revolutionary, change for me.

Lisa

[Oolon Colluphid]

That and understanding evolution is hard. Believing myths that you've been spoon fed since childhood is much easier.

Yup (though I don't think evolution is that hard to understand really; my daughter (11) is just about there with it, just from a few gentle hints plus seeing things like okapis and giraffes at the zoo, and some of my fossil books' pictures).

But at the core of the problem is the idea of questioning. It is what science is, and it is anathema to myths and other easy stories.

I was tremendously heartened and chuffed a couple of nights back when Miss Colluphid spotted her first plot hole in something (and worse, it was something I hadn't noticed myself). (FWIW, it was the Doctor Who episode School Reunion -- something to do with why, if all the kids had been eating the Krillitane-oiled chips, only a few of them seemed bright, or something like that. Maybe I'm misremembering.) Anyway, I was so proud of her thinking things through for herself and realising a bit of bullshit when she saw it.

[Lisa0315]

Yup (though I don't think evolution is that hard to understand really; my daughter (11) is just about there with it, just from a few gentle hints plus seeing things like okapis and giraffes at the zoo, and some of my fossil books' pictures).

But at the core of the problem is the idea of questioning. It is what science is, and it is anathema to myths and other easy stories.

I was tremendously heartened and chuffed a couple of nights back when Miss Colluphid spotted her first plot hole in something (and worse, it was something I hadn't noticed myself). (FWIW, it was the Doctor Who episode School Reunion -- something to do with why, if all the kids had been eating the Krillitane-oiled chips, only a few of them seemed bright, or something like that. Maybe I'm misremembering.) Anyway, I was so proud of her thinking things through for herself and realising a bit of bullshit when she saw it.

Oh, Lord. I drive people crazy doing that. I learned to keep plot holes to myself. :o

Lisa

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oh, Lord. I drive people crazy doing that. I learned to keep plot holes to myself. :o
Hate to say it Lisa, but seriously: if you want to keep your faith, do not go looking for 'plot holes' in the Bible or other doctrines. It's how a lot of us got to be the well balanced, healthy atheists we are today.

Have you heard Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Sweeney#Letting_Go_of_God)? You really should... or shouldn't. It'll have you laughing and crying at the same time (well it did for an old softy like me).

If you can think of an easy way for me to get 116MB of mp3 audio files to you (I estimate it'd take about 20 emails via my Hotmail, around 11 via my new gmail, or I could stick 'em on a disc and post to you, or I could have a go at Skype-ing them if you've got that), you are welcome to have a listen.

[Worldtraveller]

I'm actually not surprised by this result. A lot of the apatheist type 'cafeteria xians' are still deep in the xian culture and sense of community.

I can see two clear reasons why they might swing more towards a YEC view after taking a class that involves evolution (or a good geology class, for that matter).

1) They are fairly uncritical, but much more vested in the religious side of their lives, and are told that the two are incompatible. Easy choice to make.

2) They are more critical, and even a cursory analysis of the evidence makes it pretty obvious that the YEC view they have been taught all their lives and the evidence are in stark contrast, so they reject the evidence in favor of the religious view.

The up side of all this though is that it's about even.

[Albion]

It doesn't even have to be outside influences at work, although I'm sure that's going on. I have a feeling that peer pressure within the group would also account for some of this, especially after hearing some horror stories from a friend who teaches courses on astrophysics at a university in Tennessee and has come under fire for uttering the dreaded words "billions of years" in her courses.

She said that some of the students come to class primed to challenge or ostentatiously ignore the information she's giving (and she said that happened even when she deliberately avoided mentioning deep time, they were so keen to challenge the evil atheist scientist), and from what she's been told by other students in the class, these students are working behind the scenes on their classmates as well as trying to disrupt the class.

[Garnet]

Looks like the wedge strategy is working.

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

[Joykins]

What I find just as interesting as crystallized creationist beliefs (which I can well believe) is the people who switched from creationist views to evolution views and vice versa from the beginning ot the end of the course. As in, some people appeared to have changed their views completely regardless of what was being taught.

Which implies to me either bad teaching or students not paying attention, both of which are legion in college classrooms.

What persuaded me, ultimately, to cast "Creationism" aside was a Bible as Literature course, not a course in evolutionary biology (which I studied on my own, much later). (I do actually still believe in creation, just not in a sense that conflicts with the scientific evidence).

[cmoon]

My preferred method of teaching evolution in the middle and high schools has been to start with the evidence--and I mean lay it on deep. Explain how radioactive dating works, go through butt loads of fossils, show them whale skeletons with legs, archeopteryx, etc. Once you've done that, work your way back in a non-threatening manner: 'Here's how scientists explain the data.' In fact, ask students first how they might explain the evidence. What creationists can't really get around (at least not without lying) is that they don't have any way to explain the evidence and that the amount of evidence is truly overwhelming.

This approach is really much less threatening because students find the evidence inherently interesting, and it sparks their imagination. I'd love to have them all accepting evolution, but it is more important that they are familiar with the body evidence--its going to be up to them to find some cognitive resolution between sky-wizard fairy tales and THE REAL WORLD. Ultimately students aren't confronted for their beliefs but instead recognize that they will need to at least understand the ToE, and because you've come evidence first, you've essentially set the playing field for science-oriented questions, not a digression into theology.

[Laton]

The flip side is also true, that religious education (in my case 12 years of Catholic school for example) can push people away from religion. I wonder if a simillar study on that has been done?

[DMB]

This explains the process rather well, I think.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/19/field/

[Ray Moscow]

The TOE undercuts religious belief precisely where and because religion uses life and its wonders as evidence to support that religion.

Sooner or later, most theists will trot out the more pleasant wonders of life as evidence of the existence of a "creator" or "designer" (who of course happens to be their God, even if they can't substaniate that leap).

What do they make of the less pleasant wonders of life like parasites, predation, disease, etc.? Well, mostly it just helps to be ignorant and not think about them much, and "the devil" or "sin" can be blamed for the bits of reality that slip through.

[nygreenguy]

In my current condition of trying to quit cigarettes, I do not want to argue about this, okay?

I merely want to support the OP and state that while learning about evolution certainly changed how I felt about evolution and the Genesis creation story, it did not alter my belief that God still "created". I simply define "create" differently now.

I think that many scientists want to imply that evolution, whether micro, or macro, completely destroys the possibility of a creator. However, from what I can tell, science makes no statement in regards to any deity whatsoever. It neither supports nor discredits the idea of a deity, creator or otherwise. Science is either oblivious or neutral to the idea of a deity. I am not sure which term is best.

Lisa

No, but the philosophical basis of science does. This is why I think religious scientists have some issues. To believe in god goes against everything that science stand for, proof, reason, evidence and what not. To believe in something on a matter of faith, for which there is no evidence OR you choose evidence based upon emotions and "experience" is simply ludicrous.

You can only make excuses for so long lisa till you realize you are doing just that, making excuses. I know I did.

[Lisa0315]

In my current condition of trying to quit cigarettes, I do not want to argue about this, okay?

I merely want to support the OP and state that while learning about evolution certainly changed how I felt about evolution and the Genesis creation story, it did not alter my belief that God still "created". I simply define "create" differently now.

I think that many scientists want to imply that evolution, whether micro, or macro, completely destroys the possibility of a creator. However, from what I can tell, science makes no statement in regards to any deity whatsoever. It neither supports nor discredits the idea of a deity, creator or otherwise. Science is either oblivious or neutral to the idea of a deity. I am not sure which term is best.

Lisa

No, but the philosophical basis of science does. This is why I think religious scientists have some issues. To believe in god goes against everything that science stand for, proof, reason, evidence and what not. To believe in something on a matter of faith, for which there is no evidence OR you choose evidence based upon emotions and "experience" is simply ludicrous.

You can only make excuses for so long lisa till you realize you are doing just that, making excuses. I know I did.

No, I am making a conscious choice, actually. I said about 4 years ago on CF that I believed DESPITE all the logic that told me not to. It is a conscious choice to believe.

Lisa

[Garnet]

I'm not being snarky when I say this Lisa. I honestly don't know how you do that without your head exploding. I'm completely incapable of choosing what I believe.

[Lisa0315]

I'm not being snarky when I say this Lisa. I honestly don't know how you do that without your head exploding. I'm completely incapable of choosing what I believe.

:) I get that. I really do. I suppose it is a bit more than "choosing", but then, I would have to talk about internal evidence which no one buys either. :dunno: I wish I could explain it better.

Lisa

[Oolon Colluphid]

General question, not necessarily aimed at Lisa in particular:

Is it possible to decide to believe something?

[Garnet]

General question, not necessarily aimed at Lisa in particular:

Is it possible to decide to believe something?

Not for me. If it was, I'd still be some form of Christian. Being an atheist has caused me a good bit of grief.

[VoxRat]

General question, not necessarily aimed at Lisa in particular:

Is it possible to decide to believe something?I was going to say "No". But then I realized I'm just speaking for myself. I don't think it is possible for me, but it may be for others.

[Ray Moscow]

General question, not necessarily aimed at Lisa in particular:

Is it possible to decide to believe something?

I'd say no, but I have friends who insist that they decided to believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc.

It makes no sense to me, but what the hell.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'm racking my brains as to who it was I've read who raised the point: something about the ineffectiveness of... the threat of hell? ... as a reason to believe, or something like that...? Dawkins? Harris? Comte-Sponville?

[Ray Moscow]

Possibly Dawkins letter to a 10-yr-old? (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html)

[nygreenguy]

No, I am making a conscious choice, actually. I said about 4 years ago on CF that I believed DESPITE all the logic that told me not to. It is a conscious choice to believe.

Lisa

I know, which makes it even more ridiculous.

[nygreenguy]

General question, not necessarily aimed at Lisa in particular:

Is it possible to decide to believe something?

Absolutely. People do it all the time. People can convince themselves of anything.

[tjakey]

Add me to the list of those who can't believe something I suspect (let alone know) can't be true.

Isn't there some basic dishonesty going on when someone chooses to claim something as true when such a claim flies in the face of evidence anyone can see, when they know it probably isn't true or, at the very least, know they can't know? If I claim the world is flat, (no matter what I happen to believe) I am, in fact, lying to you. Wouldn't religion (since each claims to have morals) be constrained by their own morality to quit insisting that they know god exists?

Not meaning to pick a fight or cast any stones, but to believe despite all the logic, how is that not both dishonest and hypocritical?

(Damn, that thought ran off to a place I didn't expect.)

[nygreenguy]

Add me to the list of those who can't believe something I suspect (let alone know) can't be true. Thats the thing, they dont believe thinks they dont suspect are true.

Isn't there some basic dishonesty going on when someone chooses to claim something as true when such a claim flies in the face of evidence anyone can see, when they know it probably isn't true or, at the very least, know they can't know? If I claim the world is flat, (no matter what I happen to believe) I am, in fact, lying to you. Wouldn't religion (since each claims to have morals) be constrained by their own morality to quit insisting that they know god exists?

Not meaning to pick a fight or cast any stones, but to believe despite all the logic, how is that not both dishonest and hypocritical?

(Damn, that thought ran off to a place I didn't expect.)
Because they REALLY believe it! Some people dismiss the evidence, or simply think it doesnt apply/matter.

[tjakey]

And that's where they lose me nygreenguy...they REALLY believe it...WHY?

[nygreenguy]

And that's where they lose me nygreenguy...they REALLY believe it...WHY?

Some people simply believe what they want to believe. Its actually not hard to dismiss evidence when the belief makes one feel good. To give up such things can be awfully frighting, trust me, I know. Ive been there, and recently (3 years just last week)

[Puck]

I was never religious, matter of fact, I've always been anti-religious. However, I did have some quasi-spiritual belief going for awhile there. The day I realized I really didn't believe in even the spiritual stuff anymore, I felt kinda naked in the world. I spent the day wandering around the house and yard, thinking and trying to decide what it was I was feeling. The world felt very different to me that day. Thoughts of being so utterly alone in the universe, and so totally free to be me went hand in hand. I did feel better being outside in the world, than I did encased in the womb of my house. I wanted to feel the alone-ness, to test it. I wanted to know it to my bones.

However, that was me. Someone else might not welcome that alone-ness, but dread it, fear it, and want or need something 'out' there that was on their side. But for me, it was the best thing I could do. Once I lived a day like that, I woke the next morning completely free of all the mental twists and turns it took to figure out how something invisible, nay, impossible, was there in control.

I could no longer choose to believe in anything like that. But I can see how someone might. It's a huge step to let go of all belief and step into the universe alone. 'Course, then you get to be a citizen of the universe, and you see unconditional love in a whole new light. Well worth that one step.

[tjakey]

I'm not being really clear, I know that people really believe. Hell, I used to really believe myself (though a lot longer ago than 3 years). What I don't understand is how (or why) people continue to believe when they begin to suspect, or finally learn, that their beliefs are untenable. I didn't give up belief because I felt like it, or even wanted to. I had no choice but to give up my beliefs when I learned they weren't true.

[DMB]

If you take it away from the realm of religion, you have to allow for the fact that humans are simply not as rational as they like to think -- and that includes all of us.

In everyday life, including professional life, we all take on board ideas that are supported by evidence, but very partial and imperfect evidence. We couldn't live our lives without working hypotheses and we simply don't have time to investigate everything rigorously. Having grasped the initial hypothesis and used it over time, we have a tendency to gather further evidence that seems to confirm it and to discount evidence against it. It's very easy to slide into a position where almost nothing could demolish the idea we have hung onto for so long.

[Jobar]

It would seem that some people are capable of overcoming early indoctrination with the help of education later in life, and some aren't. Or more accurately, some are more capable of it, and some less.

I wonder if anyone has done any research on this? I'd love to see some sort of test which would indicate how readily a person can escape dogmas inculcated in infancy.

[Coragyps]

Oolon - where, geographically, was the study in the OP conducted?

And HELLO, vato!

[Ray Moscow]

I'm not being really clear, I know that people really believe. Hell, I used to really believe myself (though a lot longer ago than 3 years). What I don't understand is how (or why) people continue to believe when they begin to suspect, or finally learn, that their beliefs are untenable. I didn't give up belief because I felt like it, or even wanted to. I had no choice but to give up my beliefs when I learned they weren't true.

Ditto for me.

[Kali]

nvm

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oolon - where, geographically, was the study in the OP conducted?Will have to check. Nudge if/when I forget -- got a new board
to faddle with ;)

[Notta]

Oolon - where, geographically, was the study in the OP conducted?Will have to check. Nudge if/when I forget -- got a new board
to faddle with ;)Oh? Where's that??