Do Half of Americans Really Believe in Guardian Angels?

[cristo]

My wife isn't bound to demand scientific proof before she believes my story.

But the fact that your wife believes you is neither here nor there. However, I would expect that others demand scientific evidence before believing a 'supernatural' explanation of such a sighting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry for the long delay - got caught-up in politics.

But the fact that your wife believes you is neither here nor there. However, I would expect that others demand scientific evidence before believing a 'supernatural' explanation of such a sighting.

It is entirely the point for my wife. We are talking about justification for personal belief, not scientific proof. My point is that there can be a difference, and this a personal choice. [btw, this was just a hypothetical, though we really did experience a "haunting"]

The flawed logic found here is that personal belief is only justified by sufficient scientific evidence. If that were the case, then personal belief would have a higher standard than our courts of law - given that we execute people based on legal evidence, and not necessarily scientific evidence. Now, one may choose to set such a standard, but this is hardly a requirement of logic. Logic also tells me who I might believe based on my knowledge of that person. And I am certainly logically free to base my beliefs on direct personal experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, people can believe whatever they want. But whether that belief is rational or not is another matter.

That does not suggest that beliefs based on personal experience, or trust in others, is irrational.

Religon is simply an opinion about how the world works, why should this have special guidelines which supersede those (that don't exist) regarding peoples political opinions? Or any other philispphical opinions etc.

-spoon

We can talk about religion, but no bashing or promotion of specific beliefs are allowed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most of the time? Usually, the senses work just fine. It's really just once in a while that something happens that "fools" the brain and can't be processed correctly, leading to an unreliable perception. An example would be optical illusions. Perhaps the reality is a drawing of static symbols, but the person perceives motion, or the reality is a 2-D sketch, but the person perceives 3 dimensions, or the drawing is nothing but a bunch of dots, but the person perceives a solid image. When someone sees something without context, another person with them could help provide the context, even if they are doing so inadvertently.

Of course this is often a default explanation given even if it contradicts the alleged facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f is one such abstract, entitled 'Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations.'

Too bad I can't read it. What was the journal?

The first question would be whether this relates to education. If the IQs are known, then it must be that formal education has already influenced beliefs. As is evident on this forum, people in academia have a strong bias against religion, so it is logical to assume that this bias carries through in lower education.

Is there any correlation between IQ and status of a nation? ie. Do people in developed nations generally have higher IQs than people in underdeveloped nations?

Also, I have seen several discussion that suggest that IQ is not a valid measure of intelligence. In fact I think this is generally accepted now. So it makes me wonder if IQ tests are selective for people who are proof oriented; or even people who are inordinately distrustful of others.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

You mean 50% of American doesn't believe in my existence?

I believe you exist, but your'e no angel.
But you can be the devil if you only want to. (-:

 

[K.J.Healey]

Too bad I can't read it. What was the journal?

The first question would be whether this relates to education. If the IQs are known, then it must be that formal education has already influenced beliefs. As is evident on this forum, people in academia have a strong bias against religion, so it is logical to assume that this bias carries through in lower education.

Is there any correlation between IQ and status of a nation? ie. Do people in developed nations generally have higher IQs than people in underdeveloped nations?

Also, I have seen several discussion that suggest that IQ is not a valid measure of intelligence. In fact I think this is generally accepted now. So it makes me wonder if IQ tests are selective for people who are proof oriented; or even people who are inordinately distrustful of others.

It was published by "Intelligence" :
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620195/description

What's funny is that USA is fairly outside of the trend. (Being both average intelligence and God believing).

Try to find somewhere to get the article, it was pretty good. It did not seem to attempt to make any accusations against religious people and their intelligence, it merely put forth the data and correlations for however many countries. If I were more religious and one those capable of analysis without being defensive due to pride, I would not be offended by this article.

 

[muppet]

Of course this is often a default explanation given even if it contradicts the alleged facts.

By the "alleged facts" do you mean the evidence of an eyewitness? I take the point of your allusion to the scientific method: if a model can't accommodate evidence, then the model is wrong.
However, the point of acknowledging that humans are fallible is that a model that precludes the possibility of the supernatural can accommodate isolated incidents that none of us could explain were we in a position to see them. Hume's maxim:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood be more miraculous than that which it pupports to be true.

Take quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone really believes the interpretation of the two-slit experiment when they first hear it. There's a chain of thought which rules out all the possibilities we could think of based on our classical experience- bouncing off the walls of the slits, etc. Then, when you accompany this strange new idea with its power to predict the results of so many different experiments performed by different people in cases where our intuition fails us, and with the fact that quantum mechanics also tells us why we don't observe macroscopic quantum effects, it becomes more likely that the full generality of nature's rulebook isn't observed on a day-to-day basis than it is that so many people and such a comprehensive set of rules could be wrong.

I'd also be wary of basing conclusions about academia by people on this forum. Scientists are more likely than the general public to be atheist (I read that something like ~85% of practicing scientists in the US are atheist) but I don't know that that will translate across to arts subjects- a great many of those scientists will reject religion because they perceive that there is a lack of evidence to believe it, wheras most other disciplines aren't so intrinsically sceptical. Nor do I think you can argue that it filters down into lower education. School teaching is intrinsically different to academia- it's more about the kids you work with than the subject you teach. The mindset and environment are different.

 

[Damascus Road]

I deleted a couple of posts that were insults to people of faith. While it is understandable that some people find religious or faith based beliefs logically offensive, please refrain from making personal insults.

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.

 

[ForMyThunder]

I believe in God. And I believe in angels. Why does this alarm and offend so many people?

 

[turbo]

I believe in God. And I believe in angels. Why does this alarm and offend so many people?

If you believe in deities and supernatural beings who exert influence in the real world, you can justify anything. This is antithetical to the application of natural science, in which (apart from the quantum scales) cause and effect are real and discoverable.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Logic also tells me who I might believe based on my knowledge of that person. And I am certainly logically free to base my beliefs on direct personal experience.

Isn't knowledge of that person and direct personal experience the same thing? It certainly wouldn't be irrational to base your decision on direct personal experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you believe in deities and supernatural beings who exert influence in the real world, you can justify anything. This is antithetical to the application of natural science, in which (apart from the quantum scales) cause and effect are real and discoverable.

You are making a good number of assumption there. Belief in God and an occasional miracle do not exclude the validity of natural science. Even creationism can be logically consistent with science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't knowledge of that person and direct personal experience the same thing? It certainly wouldn't be irrational to base your decision on direct personal experience.

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.

 

[Doc Al]

That quote has got to be the silliest thing I've heard in a while.

 

[Evo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rupert Murdoch won't change the WSJ, they said.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How do angels see without physical eyes? Do spirits have mass?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do angels see without physical eyes? Do spirits have mass?

Heh, there is no way to address such questions because don't have any scientific evidence for such things. Speaking from a faith point of view, the explanation given is that there are laws that govern the universe that we don't yet understand. They are sometimes referred to as God's Laws, or Divine Law.

I deleted a post just made referring to the alleged measurement of mass loss upon death, attributed to the soul, which is silly.

 

[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.