50% of US believes in angels

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else to consider is that there are interpretations, and then there are alleged experiences, or phenomena. When we say "angels", we automatically assume certain interpretations of the word, without really knowing what we mean.

Many of the ET believers take "angel", to mean alien. Many take biblical accounts of Angelic and Godly encounters, to be encounters with extraterrestrials.

It is interesting to see the convergence of these two belief systems. And one of the promoters of this idea is actually a Presbyterian minister.

There are also religious people who consider the alleged ETs to be the biblical demons - the Nephilim.

 

[||spoon||]

I just wanted to make the comment that all people are people of faith. Much of our science and what we think we know is based on assumptions.
Many people here likely believe that only what they can see is real, and that our modern science is mostly true - but its still a belief.

The assumptions which science makes are testable, and are tested using the scientific method. If the assumptions are deemed false they are thrown out. On the otherhand, if they are tested, are found to be true, and make testable predictions which are also found to hold, then the assumption is deemed valid.

People who hold the opinion that these scientific assumptions are valid, may (as you put it) "believe" in science, but this is not comaparble to religious beliefs or belief in extra terrestrials etc. because people who "believe" in science do so without the need of faith. Faith requires belief in something without evidence, this is not nessecary in science. Science is not a belief in the sense you were implying.

-Spoon

 

[OmCheeto]

Then they're not atheists, they're confused religious people.

Yes. They are confused, as I once was. They are deists, and not theists, as their parents and clergy told them to be.

See Thomas Jefferson.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I was thinking along the lines of a man who claimed that his dead son appeared to him in his bedroom, and that they sat on the bed and had a talk. His would be a direct personal experience, and his wife might believe him because of thirty years of marriage, and trust.

Not to say that it really happened, but it is a real claim.

On such an extraordinary claim as that, simply believing him without proper evidence would be irrational. I was thinking of something more ordinary, such as outsiders making a claim about one of your friends, but you don't accept that claim because of direct personal experience with your friend. I don't think it's irrational in this case to reject the claim based on trust, unless of course evidence supporting this claim comes around.

 

[Proton Soup]

On such an extraordinary claim as that, simply believing him without proper evidence would be irrational. I was thinking of something more ordinary, such as outsiders making a claim about one of your friends, but you don't accept that claim because of direct personal experience with your friend. I don't think it's irrational in this case to reject the claim based on trust, unless of course evidence supporting this claim comes around.

that's irrational. people seek acceptance from friends and family more than from strangers. this is why "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"(sm).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I wonder why belief in angels in particular is popular? And, say, djinni in Islam. I wonder if angels, to Evangelical and other fundamentalist Christians, serve the equivalent purpose that the cult of the saints does within Catholicism. It's almost like no matter how hard the theologians try to squeeze it down to a single, monotheistic God, something squirts out around the edges and produces other divine, or at least supernatural, beings.

Maybe in addition to having a "God complex" in our brains we have an "angel complex" or something.

BTW watch out for all the ghosts and demons everybody, it's All Hallow's Eve tonight.

⚛​

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

BTW watch out for all the ghosts and demons everybody, it's All Hallow's Eve tonight.

⚛​

That's why I don't go to bed until after midnight. Then it's just Nov 1st :)

 

[LightbulbSun]

that's irrational. people seek acceptance from friends and family more than from strangers. this is why "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"(sm).

Did I not say at the end "unless evidence that supports that claim comes around?"

 

[Proton Soup]

Did I not say at the end "unless evidence that supports that claim comes around?"

yes, but even though character testimony is accepted, the legal system puts a high value on eyewitness testimony of strangers. the stranger the better, as it implies more objectivity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On such an extraordinary claim as that, simply believing him without proper evidence would be irrational.

It may seem irrational to you, and for you to believe such a claim, it may indeed be an irrational leap of faith, but it might be perfectly rational for someone else to believe him, like his wife. Irrational thinking is to exclude logic and reason. Trust is not exclusive of logic and reason. In fact, trust is usually earned over a long period of time. For this reason, science may not logically trump a lifetime of earned trust, for example.

Something else to consider would be effect that such an event would have on a person. This would not be a matter of him saying, "oh, by the way, our dead son stopped by today". Clearly something like this would be dramatic and emotionally charged. That something extraordinary took place may be self-evident. At that point it becomes a matter of how to interpret the claim: Did he have a mental break? Was it some kind of hallucination? Does he have a brain tumor? With time, these sorts of questions might be answered with some reasonable degree of confidence.

When my wife had her experience with our "haunting", I could tell the moment that I heard her voice on phone that something had happened. And this is what I think many people don't understand. Sometimes the people making strange claims have clearly been traumatized. If you know the person well, this may be highly compelling.

 

[Hanfonius]

I really do think that such statistics are amongst the most worrying, and just plain scariest that there are.

If all the unmarried mothers under the age of 18 in the United Kingdom were laid head-to-toe across the Atlantic Ocean, 98.35% would drown.

Statisticians are always accurate - they never make misteaks.

 

[LightbulbSun]

If all the unmarried mothers under the age of 18 in the United Kingdom were laid head-to-toe across the Atlantic Ocean, 98.35% would drown.

Statisticians are always accurate - they never make misteaks.

Regurgitating throw away anti-statistics lines. Go read a book on statistical analysis, and then realize how useful they are.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It may seem irrational to you, and for you to believe such a claim, it may indeed be an irrational leap of faith, but it might be perfectly rational for someone else to believe him, like his wife. Irrational thinking is to exclude logic and reason. Trust is not exclusive of logic and reason. In fact, trust is usually earned over a long period of time. For this reason, science may not logically trump a lifetime of earned trust, for example.

That depends on what you mean by "trust."

Something else to consider would be effect that such an event would have on a person. This would not be a matter of him saying, "oh, by the way, our dead son stopped by today". Clearly something like this would be dramatic and emotionally charged. That something extraordinary took place may be self-evident. At that point it becomes a matter of how to interpret the claim: Did he have a mental break? Was it some kind of hallucination? Does he have a brain tumor? With time, these sorts of questions might be answered with some reasonable degree of confidence.

When my wife had her experience with our "haunting", I could tell the moment that I heard her voice on phone that something had happened. And this is what I think many people don't understand. Sometimes the people making strange claims have clearly been traumatized. If you know the person well, this may be highly compelling.

Pathological liars can be highly compelling too. This is why its irrational to accept such an extraordinary claim as true without proper evidence supporting it.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Pathological liars can be highly compelling too. This is why its irrational to accept such an extraordinary claim as true without proper evidence supporting it.

Why does it matter what pathological liars are capable of if there is not one in this case?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Why does it matter what pathological liars are capable of if there is not one in this case?

Because Ivan was making the claim that a person being traumatized by their experience is highly compelling. I was pointing out the fact that pathological liars can create the same effect on someone else, and make what they say highly compelling too.

 

[||spoon||]

Ivan:

If someone you had known for years and years called you, distraught because, as they explain to you in graphic detail, they had just seen an elf riding a unicorn, chasing after a flying pink fairy down the middle of the street, would it be rational to believe them?

I'm going to anticipate an answer of no (i hope!), and ask why not? What is the difference between this claim and the claim of seeing angels or dead sons? Both claims are given without evidence, so why should one claim be believed but not the other?

-spoon

 

[turbo]

Ivan:

If someone you had known for years and years called you, distraught because, as they explain to you in graphic detail, they had just seen an elf riding a unicorn, chasing after a flying pink fairy down the middle of the street, would it be rational to believe them?

I'm going to anticipate an answer of no (i hope!), and ask why not? What is the difference between this claim and the claim of seeing angels or dead sons? Both claims are given without evidence, so why should one claim be believed but not the other?

-spoon

Over 30 years ago, when my wife and I first got married, we ended up living near a couple that we knew fairly well. One night, my buddy confided that he had seen a UFO close-up, and that it had landed on his mother's property. He didn't come up with any details, and certainly no proof of any such encounter. I listened politely, and then tried to move the topic onto music, literature, etc, and he got REALLY defensive. He accused me of calling him a liar (which I had pointedly NOT done) and for about a month or so, things were really cold between us. He and I had identical bikes and I race-tuned his whenever I tuned mine, my wife worked with his at a textile mill, and her sister lived with them, and the girls all shopped together.

The simple fact that I did not embrace his UFO story enraged him. He had little to no interest in astronomy, and I did, so the fact that I had spent countless hours outside looking at the night sky naked-eye, through binoculars, and other visual aids meant nothing to him. I didn't accept his vague UFO story at face-value and that made me an enemy. I fear the ascendancy of people like Palin who believe in witches, demons, ghosts, etc, and will act on their fantasies.