View source for Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?

Suggestion for some theories on why people doubt:
'''Past (personal) experiences.''' If something did not work for some reason in the past, people tend to believe that it may not work in the future. For example, baby elephants are secured with chains, while adult elephants are secured with mere ropes. Also, the use of glass to keep a fish from eating another that works even when removed. 
'''Observation of others.''' For example, if you view someone attempting and failing to walk on water, you may tend to believe that walking on water does not work, period. I suspect that Peter viewed Jesus walking on water, tried it, started to succeed, then remembered past observations and experiences which overwhelmed him, and fell in. '''Pessimism/cynicism''' For example, some people succeed at sales, others do not. The difference is eventual doubt or optimism as to whether a sale will be made. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Feed your faith, and your doubts will starve to death.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:In reply to Userafw, it was illogical for Peter to reject the fact that he was walking, and instead place greater significance to his prior inability to walk.

:I'm told that some blind people who, due to an operation, obtain their sight may actually have difficult believing they can see.  Again, this is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::You ask why do people doubt (or deny) the existence and power of God? Could it be that they have been taken over by evil, by the devil, to disbelieve in God while being influenced to deny the existence of their possessor as well? (In case this sounds extreme, I'd recommend M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', a book that demonstrates the existence of evil). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the recommendation, which I'll buy and read.  Logic certainly doesn't explain the doubt, so evil/devil is a plausible explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble with this essay. It seems to be saying that all doubt is bad. Surely that's not true, or we'd all be incredibly gullible people. Doubt and skepticism can be very beneficial. You yourself expressed a great deal of doubt about Lenski's experiments, which is certainly not a bad thing. Assuming God is omnipotent, he can do basically anything. Does it really stand to reason that we should believe anything, just because it's possible? If I told you God raised my Aunt Mildred from the dead 3 days after she died, would you believe me? I would certainly doubt such a claim. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::What I got out of the essay is that doubt in oneself and his abilities is bad.  Obviously doubt in itself is not a bad thing.  Without doubt in liberal teachings and claims, this site would not exist.  [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, I admit that part makes sense, though it is also important for one to know one's limits. I seriously doubt I could swim to, say, a not too distant island because I am not a great swimmer. Casting these doubts aside and trying anyway could easily lead to my demise. Certainly when attempting any sort of physical or other feat, one should keep a positive mindset. I think most people agree on that. But this essay goes further, centering on the resurrection of Christ. There are reasons to accept this and reasons to doubt it, but the idea that "God can do it so it's silly to think he might not have" is hardly a satisfying one. If God can do anything, should we accept all claims of everything he purportedly did? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The obvious point of the essay is to criticize ''illogical'' doubt that defies rational explanation.  I give several examples of this to illustrate the point.  When Peter is already walking on water, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can do that.  When an athlete is ahead in a contest, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can win and then degrade his performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::That much makes sense, to an extent, though if I saw someone walking on water, I would be tempted to think it was a trick of some sort, at least at first. I'm sure we've all seen enough "magic" shows to know there are myriad ways to make things appear not as they are. The point about the resurrection, which seems to be the crux of this essay, is a different matter altogether. It might be illogical for the disciples who witnessed direct evidence of the resurrection to doubt it, but for those of us who haven't (which is everyone today) such doubt does not seem so out of place. If the only argument is "it could have happened" then there's more convincing to be done.
::::::::Furthermore, at least some doubt is beneficial even in the athletic contests you mentioned. Not doubt one ''can'' win, but at least some doubt that one ''will'' win. A classic example of someone with no doubt of his victory is the hare in the tortoise and the hare parable. While it is merely a story, it is a good example of what can happen when someone is so certain of an outcome that they take it for granted. McCain is ahead in the polls now, but he should have at least ''some'' doubt of his eventual victory. If he had none at all there would be no reason to spend millions more campaigning, and if he were to stop now, he'd almost certainly lose. Having some doubt is different from having a defeatist attitude. Basically everyone agrees that the latter is detrimental. Though this has little to do with the resurrection of Christ. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 19:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Doubt is not a desire for more information"==

The essay is an interesting one, but I have to question this particular assertion.  Doubt can often be the driver of a search for more information.  A key premise of the scientific method is the application of doubt to a prevailing theory, which in turn leads to new hypotheses, research, experimentation, and then often, a new theory that replaces or improves on the old.  Doubt can also lead one to a spiritual revelation - the classic case one would promote on Conservapedia being when a non-Christian is exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and rather than just disregarding the prior beliefs, beginning an exploration and study of Christianity leading to conversion.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)