These two items came across my screen at almost exactly the same time.

That must be a sign!

An important related question is, "Why do people never recognize that they've been wrong?"

There have been questions in recent American history that have been resolved... but the truth not recognized. How do people manage this cognitive dissonance? What effect does prolonged intellectual denial have on a person?

"There have been questions in recent American history that have been resolved... but the truth not recognized."

Can you give us some examples of this?

[deleted][✘]

Can you give us some examples of this? 

I could, but I'm not going to. That's the whole point of these articles: what I consider "resolved in such-and-such a way", you may consider unresolved or resolved in a different way. 

I know I'm right... but also, you know you're right... so... what's going on, here??

Do you admit to it or change your views when proven to be wrong?

Yes. It doesn't happen often, because I'm pretty careful to get my facts straight before forming an opinion... but it has happened. (I'm talking about major topics, here, not just details.)

How has your own cognitive dissonance and intellectual denial affected you?

Since I recognize being wrong on those rare occasions when that's the case, I don't feel the cognitive dissonance of holding falsehoods to be true.

If one is going to ask personal questions (especially in an insulting manner) it would be better if one first answers the questions oneself.   You know, an attempt to be fair and objective.

I know I'm right...

Let's be more accurate in our communications here, shall we?

Perhaps a more accurate way to put that would be:

I believe I know that I'm right.

or even

I believe I'm right.

I know I'm right 

I know I'm right... but also, you know you're right... so... what's going on, here??

What is going on is an example of the limited capacity of the human mind concerning discernment. 

Discernment is the ability to perceive, understand, and judge things clearly, especially those that are not obvious or straightforward.

Most of the time, what we think and do seem pretty straightforward to us and we spend little thought on it. We assume we understand whatever the issue is enough that thought isn't necessary. "I am hungry, therefore I will eat this apple from my refrigerator." However, doing so is incredibly complex. How did the apple get there? What was involved in getting it there and what is the impact of that? How did the refrigerator get there, how did it come to be and what's the impact of that? The house the refrigerator is standing in? The power to run the refrigerator? And a million other factors associated with being able to open the refrigerator to grab the apple with which to sate your hunger. 

Trying to fit all that into one's head and actually thinking about it when all you want to do is eat an apple is a pretty hard practice to keep up, especially when having that level of discernment for every single moment about every single thing we do or think is impossible. In the case of the apple, the person enjoying it may marvel at the process that allows them to so easily enjoy it and judges the process good, while another may eat it and lament at how destructive the process may be to the environment and judges the process less than good. 

And that's just something as simple as eating an apple. Now, ask the question again. 

Every day, including right here on NT, we see people who firmly believe things that are opposites. While some of these people may be pure hypocrites... it would be presumptuous and hazardous, morally and philosophically, to imagine that they are all hypocrites. So... what's going on?

What is going on is that existing with the limited capacity for discernment humans have, they do their best to make decisions and choices based on the limited information they are able to discern. But there's more to it. They also base their decisions and choices off of what seems most important to them, and even that is based on a limited understanding of what is important. And so you get people here on NT who seemingly believe things that are opposite from the other. 

This, I believe, is the ground state of every human. We have the capacity to think, but we are limited in our ability to discern completely all there is to discern. So, people do the best they can or the best they care to. In the Book of Proverbs, as far as human effort is concerned, discernment and wisdom are to be sought after above all else.  It means that one must desire what is true over what they want and act accordingly. Given our nature, that is a hard thing to do unless one works to make it their nature. 

An important related question is, "Why do people never recognize that they've been wrong?"

I just spoke today with a retired chicken farmer, who is now an evangelical faith healer.  He claimed to have recently healed a woman with dementia and driven out her "demons" that caused her "affliction".  I did not bother to ask him why he had not healed his elderly parents' afflictions of memory loss, Parkinson's Disease, etc.

I guess his God is selective.

Or random ...

I guess his God is selective. Or random ...

God can be a useful tool to gain trust and flim flam the gullible.

Because this man and his various family members have been my neighbors for almost 3 decades, we were on a friendly neighbor basis until the last decade when they found a god.  Then it became more distant - even uncomfortable.

Currently, he is trying to find a way to buy our land for under market and allow us to live here.  Not interested in this at all.

I told him that when we decided to sell that we could list with a realtor and he could put in a bid.

When I hung up the call, I noticed that he had switched to the face time option and may have been recording our conversation.  For what purpose?  I have no idea why a man of God would need to record our conversation.

"Man of God" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. The preachers in mega-churches are "men of God".

They probably record all their phone calls.

"Man of God" is a bit of a contradiction in terms. The preachers in mega-churches are "men of God".

The tens of thousands of gods were created by men so the correct title should be Men of God Created by an Unnamed Source that cannot be Verified.

They probably record all their phone calls.

Will definitely keep that in mind should I ever have reason to speak to a preacher again.

Man of God" is a bit of a contradiction in terms

How so?

I was answering mocowgirl. You need the context.

"Why do people never recognize that they've been wrong?"

Whoever wrote that is wrong!

To state that people never recognize that they've been wrong is pure horseshit! I, for one, frequently recognize it-- as do many people I know. 

Sure, its true of some people-- the type of people I personally try to avoid.

I wonder . . . . . . maybe its the type of crowd you're hanging out with...??? 

(Curious mind want to know!!!!)

When was the last time you (or anyone else here on NT) posted "I was wrong"? About something significant, of course, not just some random datum.

Sometimes, we believe things because they are comfortable, not because they are sensible.

It is much easier to believe what is comforting than to accept a much more likely undesirable truth.

as demonstrated daily round here

It is much easier to believe what one already believes than to go through the process of evaluating and possibly revising one's position.

It is much easier to believe what one already believes than to go through the process of evaluating and possibly revising one's position.

In my experience that's generally true for most people. (Interestingly, I have met people for whom that is not true-- who are more motivated to continually learn new things than to seek "comfort").

Many people when hearing that tend to judge either way to be better-- but they are just different.

It is much easier to believe what one already believes than to go through the process of evaluating and possibly revising one's position.

I think they are the majority.

In the MBTI system of personality types , the ones that are not primarily motivated by holding on to beliefs rather than challenging them are the ENTP types.

In the MBTI system of personality types , the ones that are not primarily motivated by holding on to beliefs rather than challenging them are the ENTP types.

If anyone's curious as to what type they are, here's a quick description (click to enlarge)

It is much easier to believe what one already believes than to go through the process of evaluating and possibly revising one's position.

That brings to mind the concept of "Confirmation Bias". 

(Which, now that I think about it explains a lot of the typical behaviour of individuals who are active on social media sites.... among other things):

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Definition and context. Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.

To put it another way-- we tend to believe things we hear if it conforms to things we already believe-- and reject information that contradicts what we already believe.

(Which is what you described in comment # 4, above)

Emotion and reason can be bitter rivals.

thus the reason people hide behind their emotions, leaving progression motionless, and reasoning stuck on emotional illogical ones, allowing these individuals to escape the confliction this stated depiction can cause via the infliction of internal debate that not all wish to contemplate. Contemplations not faced, as emotionally laced, poisons the soul, the sole purpose of many, as internal conflictions avoided, leave ignorance to be anointed, and for far too many , the rule. With rulers such as this, not tough to see why so many continue to Miss, the marriage to a Mr.,trump in logic and reason to avoid the internal confliction that spreads an appeaseion, to justify their avoidance, of quite the annoyance, of having to justify their reasons for waiting in the line for the roller coaster of emotions. Where they park, amuses not thinkers, critical, of the ride we are forced to take along side these drinkers, as Kool Aid has not alcohol to blame for the insane, only non critical thinkers, that unfortunately, have numbers not small, only arguments that appall... 

They're polar opposites.

Emotion and reason can be bitter rivals.

True dat!

(Although a person can learn to integrate them so that they support each other). IMO a lot of how  it plays out depends upon the values/motives of each person.)

Why do we believe what we believe?

Interesting question.  I would also like to know why so many people want to push their beliefs (or lack of beliefs ) on others.

I would also like to know why so many people want to push their beliefs (or lack of beliefs ) on others.

Depends on where a person is on the rewards system.

In regard to religious beliefs, it depends on where a person is on the hierarchy.

The preacher wants power, money and control.

The empathetic sheeple want comfort, belonging, fellowship, community, safety in numbers and societal order.

The toxic sheeple want to be in an organization that forces the compliant sheeple to "forgive" them for lying, stealing, assault, rape, murder, etc.

I would also like to know why so many people want to push their beliefs (or lack of beliefs ) on others.

Here's why (in my opinion ):

People have a need for a belief system-- that explains what's going on. Over time they adopt one-- often one that is religious or political but there are other types.

But there's a strong need for a belief system that explains...everything!

But often even the strongest "true believers" have doubts-- which is uncomfortable.

So they seek validation. usually that takes the form of: if they can can convince others to adopt their belief system (or a similar one) they feel those beliefs are correct (and they (hopefully) can stop worrying that their system is possibly not accurate.

But there's a strong need for a belief system that explains...everything!

IMO the roots of this are biological-- it evolved with evolution. But that's another discussion and now its "off-topic"

Are people hard wired to accept certain information in certain ways? Are we discussing nature vs nurture AND/OR do people really have free will?

I think that both nature and nurture play a part.   Some people are more genetically predisposed to being timid, trusting, etc. and thus more likely to rely upon others to help them form their beliefs.   

But nurture clearly impacts beliefs.   We can see that with religion and politics.   A person raised in Iran is more likely to be a Muslim whereas their twin raised in the USA is more likely to be a Christian.   We are very much products of our environment.   

And then there are some who are not even really aware of how they form their beliefs and are not actively trying to think critically (critical thinking is something someone typically must learn how to do).   

Lots of factors here, IMO.

I think that both nature and nurture play a part.   Some people are more genetically predisposed to being timid, trusting, etc. and thus more likely to rely upon others to help them form their beliefs. 

I concur. 

But nurture clearly impacts beliefs.   We can see that with religion and politics.   A person raised in Iran is more likely to be a Muslim whereas their twin raised in the USA is more likely to be a Christian.   We are very much products of our environment.  

Both of those twins in your example "believe" in a higher power... Is there evidence that one twin could be hyper religious and the other analytical? 

And then there are some who are not even really aware of how they form their beliefs and are not actively trying to think critically (critical thinking is something someone typically must learn how to do).  

Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced. It's even more challenging these days where misinformation comes from many directions. 

Lots of factors here, IMO.

Probably more than we know today.

Both of those twins in your example "believe" in a higher power... Is there evidence that one twin could be hyper religious and the other analytical? 

I am sure there is plenty of evidence of this.   Religion is learned.   Analytical thinking is part genetic and part a result of environment.   

Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced. It's even more challenging these days where misinformation comes from many directions. 

I am convinced that some people (seems like many, even) rarely (if ever) employ critical thinking.

 Religion is learned.

The instinct is ingrained. In some it becomes environmentalism, or Marxism, or racialism,  but at its root it's all the same. 

It is nowhere near that simplistic.   Our potentials are shaped by genetics and then our cognitive mechanics are shaped by our environment (that includes both chemical and informational).   Ultimately our experiences play a major role in what we ultimately believe.

Summary of Sapolsky's Behave .   blinkist

To understand human behavior, we must delve into the biology of the brain, culture and history.

The saying goes that everything happens for a reason, and whether or not you believe this to be the case when it comes to the events that unfold in a lifetime, it’s certainly a valid statement when it comes to grasping human behavior.

If we really want to get to grips with the factors that influence humanity's best and worst behaviors, we're going to have to delve deeply into human biology.

Immediately before a given behavior occurs – such as the shooting of a gun – the oldest parts of the human brain kick into gear. We inherited these regions of the brain from our evolutionary ancestors, and these very regions are the ones that process our most basic instincts, like the fear of death. This is just the sort of emotional impulse that might lead a person to pull a trigger.

But, in the seconds to minutes before the fatal moment occurs, the brain has been busy processing sensory data – particularly visual or auditory information – based on its immediate environment. This information from the senses impacts on how we act. In a war zone, for example, heightened sensory awareness of danger makes it much more likely that we'll act aggressively.

However, the brain’s response isn’t randomly generated. In fact, our behavioral biology is deeply intertwined with human society, culture and history.

Years to decades before a behavior takes place, we’ll have grown up in human societies that determine our behavior. Different societies will condition us to behave in different ways; in other words, we are more prone to violence if we were exposed and accustomed to constant violence earlier in our lives.

And if we go back hundreds to thousands of years, we’d find ancestral geographies and ecologies have affected human behavior, for better and for worse.

In short, if we’re going to get to the crux of the matter, we’re going to have to take an interdisciplinary approach to explain the complex origins of human behavior.

This is an excellent book that deals with the myriad factors that contribute to our emergent behavior.

I am sure there is plenty of evidence of this.   Religion is learned.   Analytical thinking is part genetic and part a result of environment.   

The flavor of religion is learned - the predisposition for belief may or may not be. I spent a lot of time in churches and around religious people. I once contemplated the ministry and was once asked to join a Wiccan group. I've studied books on the Golden Dawn, Buddhism, Islam, and philosophy. It's all squishy to me. I'd rather spend time with history, anthropology and as much quantum physics as I can before my brain hurts.

I am convinced that some people (seems like many, even) rarely (if ever) employ critical thinking. 

It should be taught at school, but as we know we are fighting those that believe critical thinking is liberal and therefore evil. I don't know what's evil about algebraic proofs, algebra and geometry, but those are simple ways to start. Reading comprehension would be another good avenue, but this is where schools see the most push back. It requires reading many different kind of books from as many points of view as possible and we just can't have that now.

... we are fighting those that believe critical thinking is liberal ...

They do?   How on Earth does one come to such a conclusion ??

It requires reading many different kind of books from as many points of view as possible and we just can't have that now.

Knowledge is power.

This is why children are easy targets of toxic people wanting to enslave their minds (and allegiance) for their entire lifetime.

This is why there must be a strict separation of church and state in public schools.

I am a supporter of teaching the origins, evolution and demise of world religions as an elective in high school.

It is nowhere near that simplistic.   

It really is.  All known human societies have had a religion of some form or another.   That instinct, through the factors mentioned expresses itself in a variety of ways. The same personality who became an inquisitor in 15th Century Spain  is an environmental activist proclaiming 5 years to save the world type today. 

The same personality who became an inquisitor in 15th Century Spain  is an environmental activist proclaiming 5 years to save the world type today. 

A mere claim that you cannot possibly substantiate.   Seems like a ridiculous, over-simplistic, and heavily biased opinion.

A mere claim that you cannot possibly substantiate.   

If you can't see what's before your eyes, there's nothing I can do to help you. 

but as we know we are fighting those that believe critical thinking is liberal and therefore evil.

I think that some of both sides of the political spectrum are critical thinkers and some are not.

I don't know what's evil about algebraic proofs, algebra and geometry, but those are simple ways to start. Reading comprehension would be another good avenue, but this is where schools see the most push back.

 Per OECD, the US ranked 6th in reading, 10th in science, and 26th in math.  Is that poor record in mat primarily in red areas or urban areas?

A platitude dodge.   Make an argument.   Show the persuasive evidence that the complex biological and informational factors of most inquisitors are the same factors of modern day environmental activists.

Your hypothesis is over-simplistic.   Human beings are far more complex than what you envision.

You could, for example, suggest that there are human beings who are genetically predisposed to violence, or anarchy, etc.   That would then speak of one of myriad factors and you could get some genetic support for that hypothesis (albeit the predisposition is moderated by many other factors of the individual).   

But for you to include all factors and make such a grand leap, is laughably absurd.  

I again recommend you read Sapolsky's  Behave.      amazon

“The same personality who became an inquisitor in 15th Century Spain  is an environmental activist proclaiming 5 years to save the world type today.”

Interesting hypothesis. To help clarify, what 15th Century ‘personality’ trait would best describe you today?

Human beings are far more complex than what you envision.

Keep flogging that strawman!   Willfully or not,  and for purposes known only to yourself, you seem to believe that your excerpts somehow contradicts what I've written. It is in fact, how  those complex  factors interreact that result in the same personality types ending up as inquisitors or environmental activists.  

The relationship between religion and environmentalism is pretty obvious, given the application of some critical thinking skills. 

To help clarify, what 15th Century ‘personality’ trait would best describe you today?

It's not a 15th Century Personality trait.  Switch soviet commissar in 1930 and inquisitor if it makes it easier for you. 

You are simply making claims and denials.

The relationship between religion and environmentalism is pretty obvious, given the application of some critical thinking skills. 

Okay, then make an actual, evidence-based, sound argument.   

Switch soviet commissar in 1930 and inquisitor if it makes it easier for you. 

Your point would be much better served if you simply observed that there are some people who are predisposed to authoritarianism.   Just like some are predisposed to passively helping others (altruism).    How a general trait ultimately manifests in an individual is extremely complex and is a mixture of genetics, environment, and experiences.   Thus simply because one is genetically predisposed to cruelty (for example) does not mean that this necessarily emerges as an identifiable behavior.

There are identifiable general traits that, across humanity, emerge as patterns.   That much is certainly true.

“There are identifiable general traits that, across humanity, emerge as patterns.   That much is certainly true.”

True, true.

Those enviable traits such as gratitude, empathy, and a sense of humor. Too often dismissed as but a distraction to the absurd and surreal arguments posited sans any proof, any substance. 

Are people hard wired to accept certain information in certain ways? Are we discussing nature vs nurture AND/OR do people really have free will?

A baby learns from its parents. It cannot know the quality and accuracy of the parents' teachings. A baby naturally "believes" its parents. What the parents say is "true".

A child may or may not acquire some skepticism during elementary school... sometimes from parents and sometimes from teachers.

Or not.

Some people never learn to question their parents and teachers. And preachers...

Some people never learn to question their parents and teachers. And preachers...

That may have been generally true 100 years ago, but has been obsolete thinking for decades and gets more obsolete by the minute. Mass media drives the culture and worldview and sets  the default for people's belief systems to a much larger extent. 

I presented no proof of my belief. You presented no proof of your belief.

That's the problem.

No proof is one reason why one should not go by mere belief, much less purport belief as fact, as some seem prone to do.

Yes, but........

Some people see a thing as obvious, undeniable. They aren't going to bother supplying evidence for that obvious thing. Others ses an opposite thing as obvious, undeniable... and they won't supply evidence either. 

We should be able to recognize such a stand-off. We should suspend the debate, while we lay out our evidence and try to agree which is more valid.

Yeah, right.....'

No evidence means no credibility or reason to accept what they claim to see.

I'm not going to present evidence every time I mention evolution. Some things are settled.

Joe Fireandbrimstone isn't going to present evidence every time he mentions damnation. 

We have no common ground.

Evolution has evidence. Theistic claims do not. 

Evidence that satisfies whom?

That's the problem. A Bible-thumper considers that Book to be valid evidence, but refuses The Origin of Species.

That's the problem. A Bible-thumper considers that Book to be valid evidence, but refuses The Origin of Species .

Most Bible-thumpers count on the fact that most people who own some translation of The Bible hasn't read it or couldn't comprehend it if they had tried.

Reading comprehension in the US needs vast improvement.

Do More Than Half of Americans Read Below 6th-Grade Level? | Snopes.com

Do More Than Half of Americans Read Below a 6th-Grade Level?

This claim is true, according to a review of the U.S. education system that was conducted in September 2020. Let’s explore.

A   Gallup analysis   published in March 2020 looked at data collected by the   U.S. Department of Educatio n in 2012, 2014, and 2017. It found that 130 million adults in the country have low literacy skills, meaning that more than half (54%) of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, according to a piece published in 2022 by   APM Research Lab .

The 2020 Gallup estimates were part of an economic analysis that used literacy rates to determine missed and potential financial gains. It was based on data from an international assessment of adult skills called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies ( PIAAC ) and the U.S. Department of Education. The analysis combined individual PIAAC data from 2012 to 2017 to create and publish estimated literacy levels for every county in the U.S.

“The U.S. Department of Education combined assessment data from three sample waves (2012, 2014 and 2017), using data from 12,330 respondents living in 185 counties. The research team then modelled the literacy scores, which means they gathered a large amount of data about each respondent and his or her county to predict that respondent’s literacy score,” read the report.

Also,  the Bible isn't an easy read. Anyone who doesn't know the context it was written in cannot understand it. The language, even in the most recent and accurate (in the scholarly sense) is difficult.

Reading the Bible is like reading about quantum physics - you need training.

Personal Satisfaction is irrelevant. It's the validity of the evidence which matters. A book to prove the book is circular logic.

Reading the Bible is like reading about quantum physics - you need training.

People sign contracts without reading them (on and off the internet).

People buy bikes, televisions, power tools, lawnmowers, vehicles and computers and never bother to read the operations manual.

In the case of religion, all too many times it is sold to children who have no ability to comprehend anything at all about the lifelong misery that is being forced upon them.

Church attendance is at an all-time low because parents stopped taking their children decades ago for various reasons.  The seven-day consumerism in the US resulted in more people working on Sundays so attending church was not an option.  Church is really depressing trying to live up to the impossible standards of a God.  Equally bad is not being able to outdress and outshine the fellow sinners.

Probably at least one-third of churches are led by a man with narcissistic personality disorder.   Power and control over others are the narcissist's oxygen. 

Probably at least one-third of churches are led by a man with narcissistic personality disorder. 

more info

The Iceberg of Narcissism in Pastoral Leadership - Indiana Ministries

The Iceberg of Narcissism in Pastoral Leadership

  You are not going to find a lot written on narcissism and the destructive role it plays in pastors and churches. We are only recently discovering how narcissism is a primary root cause of so much moral failure, abuse, and damage in the church. 

In 2013, Glenn Ball and Darrell Puls conducted research to determine the prevalence of narcissism in pastors ^[1] . They surveyed 1,385 pastors, of which 30% participated by completing the survey. Of those participants, 31% were in the spectrum of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). What is NPD? According to the American Psychological Association’s DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), it’s “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.”

Most of those reading this are pastors. If over 30% of pastors fall into the narcissistic spectrum, you might wonder, am I one of them? Am I a narcissist? A true narcissist will never ask that question. That is a reason that NPD has such a low rate of successful treatment. 

Is this post meant for me? I didn't mention "Personal Satisfaction".

For a fundamentalist, the Bible doesn't need proof because it is true. 

Different points of view...

People sign contracts...

Yes. That was my point. People often overreach.

I don't know why church attendance is so low. I'd like to think that it's because church goers want Christ's message but (as you say) are getting something else. 

I don't pretend to know much about churches. I haven't attended anything other than weddings and funerals for many many, many years.

What I read is underwhelming. Immoral preachers / priests, worship of Mammon, hypocrisy in the pulpit. 

Different points of view...

Sure, but when someone makes a specific claim such as "the Bible is 100% divine truth", that claim bears the burden of evidence / proof.

I can claim that Leprechauns are indeed real or that we are all living in an artificial reality like the "Matrix" but that does not accomplish anything.

This is a curious little tidbit.  One of my uncle-in-laws is a devout Christian.  He reads the Bible every day.   It is his guide to life.

He, however, rejects all organized religions and no longer attends masses (was raised Catholic).   

So I think he is an example of someone who is disillusioned by organized religion but who remains entirely consumed by his spiritual beliefs.

I agree, but that's because we have (roughly) the same point of view. It's easy to agree with someone when you agree with them.

Someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant wouldn't agree. Faced with contradiction in the Bible, such a person simply denies that "your evidence" is pertinent... or whatever.

Belief trumps reason.

This is something I don't understand: "reading the Bible every day". Why? What's the point? Necessarily, the reader must repeat.

Does he have any training in Biblical exegesis? 

It's easy to agree with someone when you agree with them.

I agree.

He tells me that everything he needs to know is "right here in this book".   And he has no formal training in exegesis.   Not that this is of any concern to him.

He reads the Bible every day because he believes it is divine and I suppose he believes it continually delivers something.

Someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant wouldn't agree.

Ultimately though, a claim — especially one that is extraordinary — bears the burden of evidence.   It does not matter what one believes.   

One can deny this fact of basic logic, but being stubbornly ignorant does not make one correct.

So, ultimately, it is true that there is no arguing with individuals who are beyond reason.   But luckily there are others who are more reasonable who might be influenced by / interested in one's argument.

Theists only believe the bible is true. But belief doesn't equal fact. Obviously many biblical stories cannot be true, as actual evidence refutes them. 

Is he a good man? Does his Bible have anything to do with who he is?

He is a very good man.   Altruistic, friendly, peaceful, etc.   

I cannot know to what degree his faith (his Bible) affects his goodness.   I do, however, find it hard to imagine this man being anything but a good man regardless of spiritual beliefs.   But ... no real way to know.

Yes. That was my point. People often overreach.

I would call it underreach if they are willing to sacrifice the only life they have on a Book they can't read or understand.

I don't know why church attendance is so low. I'd like to think that it's because church goers want Christ's message but (as you say) are getting something else. 

There are numerous studies on the internet about why the Christian religion is going out of vogue in the US.   I haven't read a study that cited the reason was the lack of hearing "Christ's message".  

Religion is divisive.  The Christian religion has 45,000 denominations globally vying for the title of being the one true religion that honors the one true god - Yahweh.

Why does Christianity have so many denominations? | Live Science

Followers of Jesus span the globe. But the global body of more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist — the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the   Center for the Study of Global Christianity . So why does Christianity have so many branches? 

A cursory look shows that differences in belief, power grabs and corruption all had a part to play. 

But on some level, differentiation and variety have been markers of Christianity since the very beginning, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor emeritus of church history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "There's never been a united Christianity," he told Live Science. 

I don't pretend to know much about churches.

Or world religions?

The vast majority of the world's population are not Christian.  I find it misleading when researching religion to have Christianity listed as the world's largest religion when it consists of 45,000 denominations with major differences on which one is the true Christian religion that follows the instructions approved by Yahweh/Yeshua in order to pass through the Pearly Gates.

I know of no major religion that's monolithic. They all have subsets. (Well... I'm not sure about Confucianism.)

Even Catholicism has an "Eastern " branch, with married priests. 

It seems to me that anyone who takes their faith seriously must think about it... and when a person decides something about a topic that's important for them, they often insist heavily. Inquisitions are found in many religions, hunting for "heretics" - anyone who disagrees with them.

Fractiousness seems endemic in organized religion.

I don't know why church attendance is so low.

Some ideas to consider.

Why People Aren’t Religious Anymore: 15 Simple Reasons (lovedbycurls.com)

and 

20 reasons why millennials no longer want to go to church (lovedbycurls.com)

do people really have free will?

Depends on how much time they spend on social media!

(My belief is that the amount of freewill people have is inversely proportional to the amount of time they spend online!)

culture,path of least resistance/selfishness, social rewards 

I think there is a belief, extremely widespread, that has done more damage than all religions combined. 

That belief is that the strong take advantage of the weak, and that is ok because it is human nature.

The world may need to operate on a basis other than ego, but no one knows if that is even possible. 

In general, religious teaching is that people should be humble, helpful, and brave.  I see nothing wrong with that. Too much hating on religion here. 

Love one another?

I don't think that there is too much hating on religion on NT, JR. What is discussed 99.99% of the time is Christian religion or a bit of Islam and Judaism. Other faiths are rarely if at all discussed which of course draws the lines of ''believe and not believe'' that is what you see here. 

Pointing out the many sins that Christians/Islam/Judaism have enshrined in the dogma is pointing out facts, not hate. Still, beyond that if other faiths were part of the discussions on NT it might make the debates much more interesting when it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or being an atheist is simply repeat, rinse, repeat which side you are on.

In 1973 Vine DeLoria Jr. wrote ''God is Red'' the seminal books on Native American religions. Well worth reading if one is interested in other voices. Exploring a belief system that is beyond one's imagination is mentally challenging. Another excellent book by DeLoria which he wrote a few years after God is Red, is ''The Metaphysics of Modern Existence'' the books work well with one another.

Here is a bit about DeLoria.

Vine Deloria Jr.was named by TIME magazine as one of the greatest religious thinkers of the twentieth century. A prolific scholar, Vine authored or edited 29 books and over 200 articles and delivered countless addresses and testimonials. Perhaps even more impressive was the diverse range of intellectual disciplines he traversed with aplomb, including law, religion, natural and social sciences, literary criticism, and education.Mar 30, 2023

This is my contribution to the dicussion.

The world may need to operate on a basis other than ego, but no one knows if that is even possible. 

Have you ever known any Buddhists? (And some branches of Hinduism).

In fact the goal of a lot of the so-called "eastern-religions" is to transcend Ego. (Well, at least that's the first step...). 

Buddhist monks in Myanmar have committed religion-based atrocities.

I think that humans have an innate need to search fore a meaning to life beyond the chemistry and physics that make life possible here.  Religion has provided a framework for that search.

What a silly species we are. 

a world where all was based on proven fact, such as scientific observations and experiments, would bore a sizable part of the population to death

What a silly species we are. 

a world where all was based on proven fact, such as scientific observations and experiments, would bore a sizable part of the population to death

I would say there is more wonder in scientific discovery than listening to some dusty old stick talk about about god, but that's me.

I would rather study the history of philosophy than the history of the planets and the solar system. 

I would find such a world refreshing and exciting. Who wouldn't want to have proven facts? But I suppose some are emotionally or intellectually weak and need their comfort mechanisms like belief. 

Vulcans 🖖 

sed on proven fact, such as scientific observations and experiments, would bore a sizable part of the population to death

The thing is "facts" change all the time.  What's boring is people thinking we think we know now is unassailable.

 " With scientometrics, we can measure the exponential growth of facts, how long it will take, exponentially, for knowledge in any field to be disproved—say, 45 years for medical knowledge"

amazon

I would rather study the history of philosophy than the history of the planets and the solar system. 

Philosophy is little more than endless questions without answers. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with philosophy, or the history of it, just it doesn't do a whole lot. We can say the pursuit of any activity is its own reward for those that enjoy such.

Philosophy is little more than endless questions without answers

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean, d-doo yeah

youtu.be

We can say the pursuit of any activity is its own reward for those that enjoy such.

Deeper thinking reveals that philosophical study encourages critical thinking which is essential aspect of creativity and innovation in the workplace.

Additionally, philosophy helps in understanding what our own ideas are based on, and how they stand in relation to those of others when exploring complex issues.

It also provides a framework for understanding ethical issues and applications.

alanis ?

In 1750, a person could know everything that humanity knew, because humanity didn't "know" much. Then came the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, ......

CERN!

The history of the moon and planets does nothing for anyone either. 

Philosophy provides ways for people to think about their existence. The science of the moon and the planets is a way to think about the moon and planets existence. 

Studying nature is studying 'God' (by whatever definition one chooses).

If there is a sentient god, one is learning about said god through its creations.

If not, then we are learning about a non-sentient creator (another form of god) through that which it has enabled to exist.

Studying nature approximates truth.   It is providing information.

Studying philosophy is simply learning about new ways to think about what we do not know.

The thing is "facts" change all the time. What's boring is people thinking we think we know now is unassailable.

That's an interesting statement. Who do you imagine are more vehemently attached to their "facts", fundamentalists or scientists?

That is easy.   Fundamentalists.

'Facts' for fundamentalists are immutable and inerrant.

Scientists will cavalierly (enthusiastically) discard their 'facts' when they are shown to not be so.

Aren’t they an invention of TV writers?

As compared to...

Otters!

(They are enlightened beings).

The Monterey Aquarium has a great sea otter exhibit.

I would rather study the history of philosophy than the history of the planets and the solar system. 

Often people have a tendency to look outside themselves for answers (which may work for some people).

In many eastern spiritual paths, while at times  people have spiritual teachers (gurus), IMO the more enlightened folks know that the answer lies within ourselves. (Meditation is one of many practices that aid in going deeper...). 

Meditation quiets the mind, and allow the meditator to gointo deeper levels of awareness.

And BTW, some of these principles are also found in western religions:

Yeah, but they're cool.

No, Edie Brickell & New Bohemians

Exactly. Scientists want their facts to be proven wrong - that's when things get interesting. 

But that's very rare. Details get better data, that's about it.

Sometimes scientists' questions don't have good answers ("dark matter"), and you can feel them quivering with excitement at the idea of a breakthrough idea. 

But science is rarely "wrong". Copernicus turned cosmology on its head, but over the half-millennium since we have had only refinements, with Newton and Einstein in the lead.

Darwin didn't actually "correct" anything - he filled a vacuum.

Over those centuries, I suspect that "believers" have been much less open to new thinking.

cientists want their facts to be proven wrong - that's when things get interesting. 

That's the theory, reality is quite different. Scientists are just as venal and self interested  as any plumbers or any other profession. The amount of faked papers, unreplicable results etc prove that. How anyone could have lived through covid and not realized how politicized science is is beyond me. 

That's the theory, reality is quite different. Scientists are just as venal and self interested  as any plumbers or any other profession. The amount of faked papers, unreplicable results etc prove that.

And when scientists engage in such actions, they are soundly called out and discredited within the scientific community. Science is hard on itself in that way.

How anyone could have lived through covid and not realized how politicized science is is beyond me. 

The science was sound. It's the politicians that are the problem. They are to blame, not the science.

Scientists want their facts to be proven wrong - that's when things get interesting. 

Well, let's factor in human nature, scientists really prefer it when they find that other scientists were wrong.       Especially if they are the finder.

But science is rarely "wrong". 

It is basically a process that slowly converges on truth.  It will have hiccups along the way, but it is self-correcting (and driven to be so) and mostly objective.

Typical crap.  We are talking about science in general and you observe that human beings are imperfect and that some scientists can be bought, etc.

As if that discredits all of science.

Yeah, Sean, there are dishonest scientists.   We know.   Now make an argument that science itself (as a whole) is something other than a self-correcting search for objective truth.

How do you know about those faked papers? Peer review? 

Science assumes that people make mistakes, so there are dispositions to find those mistakes. Dishonesty gets caught by those same dispositions.

I don’t "believe" in science. There's no faith involved. Science is organized so as to find things and then verify that finding.

As for covid... science didn't recommend drinking bleach.

"Any time scientists disagree, it's because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I'm right, or you're right, or we're both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion." --- Neil deGrasse Tyson

long haired hippie chick from Paul Simon ?

I think she is too young to have ever been a hippy but she is married to Paul Simon.