Why do believers have such a hard time saying "I don't know"

[Heddi]

I think "I don't know" is one of the most honest, open phrases that someone can say in response to a question. As a nurse, I'm asked a SHITTON of questions that the only answer I have for is "I don't know." And I'm happy to say it. It's not an admission of ignorance (that, to me is something like "who cares?&quot . To me "I don't know" is the honest truth if I don't know the answer to something.

Now, oftentimes i will follow that with ", but I'll find out for you" if it's something that I can find out: when does the cafeteria close, does this medication interact with another one, what's the address for the rehab center, etc...

But sometimes "I don't know" is the best I can come up with. And it satisfies people, I feel.

Someone sobbing over the body of their drowned toddler, now becoming room temperature, fingers blue. Looking at me with bloodstained eyes and faces stained with tears. "why did this happen?" "i don't know.'

But on a less morose thread, why can't so many believers say "I don't know" when it comes to questions re: god and religion?

What was there before the big bang?
me: I don't know
them: God knows all

How can a loving God allow such cruelty?
Me: I don't know
them: God answers all prayers, sometimes the answer is no
them: God has plans for us all
them: We must know true evil in order to appreciate true love
them: Evil is man's burden that comes from the curse of free will

How did the universe start?
Me: I don't know
them: God Did it!

Why did 10 people die in a fire but I escaped unscathed?
me: I don't know
them: God has plans for us all
them: god was watching over you


Why is it, like, poison for so many religionists to say I DON'T KNOW to an answer? It's as if it's an affront to God to admit that you don't have the answer to something (and saying 'God did it' or "only god knows" is NOT an answer. It's a cop-out)

At least by my saying "I don't know," I leave open the option of "but I'll find out for you," or "but I'll find out for myself," or "wow, that's an interesting question I'd like to look into, even if it doesn't provide any further answers"

But saying "God did it" or "god's plan" or "all prayers answered, even if answer is no" isn't open for any further learning. It's a closing statement. God did it, that's all there is, now shut your fresh mouth.

---

I have to say I had no idea what a relatively secular wonderland Seattle is compared to my experiences of living/growing up in SC, living in FL twice as an adult, and now currently living in Philadelphia. Holy shit (no pun intended), God is pushed in my face every day by coworkers, people at WaWa, patients....I feel like I'm in the deep south, seriously. Anti-union sentiment, not too many open democrats/liberals, and "hey what church do you go to since you've moved to town?"

In Seattle, I was never afraid to let others know about my atheism. Here, my mouth is firmly shut. I feel my job would be greatly in jeopardy if I did say something. The manager's office, nurse educator's office...all filled with religious symbols and VBS paper-plate crafts. And this is not a religious hospital.

So far I've been able to dance around the religion issues with "oh, no, no church yet, we're pretty particular...." or "when can I go to church? I work full time and am a full time student! Right now I pray to the god of Statistics Finals heh heh heh..."

It's hard living out there, folks.

[phantom power]

1. I bet there's not just one answer to that

It's established that there are personality types which are comfortable with ambiguity, and others that are uncomfortable with it.

There's a memetic argument: religions that encourage tolerance of "I don't know" probably don't last very long, and are outcompeted by religions which position themselves as the way to obtain epistemologic closure.

But, I don't know. You know?

[pokerfan]

2. RP Feynman was a fine man....

"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me."

[Heddi]

5. I've never heard of him before. THat's an awesome quote

and sums up my feelings perfectly

[pokerfan]

11. One of the greatest physicists of our time

Nobel prize, fantastic popularizer or science and most of all a rationalist.

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

[skepticscott]

3. There seem to be quite a few believers

Including more than a few on this site, who positively revel in uncertainty and "Mystery" (or is that MySterY?). They seem to delight in embracing all possibilities as of equal value and likelihood, regardless of the weight of evidence for or against any of them, and to be positively allergic to the concept of dismissing any possibilities as so vanishingly unlikely as to not be worth considering. Of course, that's often a defense mechanism employed when they see the possibilities that they favor burning in the fires of reason. That's when they resort to the bankrupt tactic of "well, we can't really know anything for certain", as if that makes everything equal.

[Heddi]

8. there are different ways of knowing

but I can't tell you of those ways. You just "know" you know, you know?

[malthaussen]

10. It's like love at first sight.

There is no reason for it. You can provide reasons to explain it, but you still don't love for those reasons.

Which can drive a rationalist crazy, especially when those who love at first sight assume the sense of smug superiority and tell one they could "never understand."

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

4. I don't know.

But I can speculate for you: one of the things believing in the god-thing provides is answers to those questions, some kind of anchor or certainty in an uncertain world. This is a comfort to many, but totally opaque to those for whom uncertainty is okay.

-- Mal

[Heddi]

7. Anchor vs crutch?

I think after a while it becomes easy to transition from metaphysical questions "why are we here," "what's the meaning of life," etc, as being answered "God's Plan", which can be an anchor, to being a crutch when faced with more difficult problems that DO have concrete answers, but are given "god's plan" as an all encompassing, 'why search for knowledge because God knows all" type.

This becomes an issue with regards to public education boards being controlled by Religionists who have no use for science because they know 'god did it' and that's as deep as their scientific intellect can go, and therefore they hold everyone else to the same intellectual growth stunt.

Why worry about GLobal Warming? Jesus is coming!
Who cares about the Rain Forrest? God has a plan!

It's an anchor when it provides personal solace during tough times. It's a crutch, and a curse, when "God did it so stop asking questions you fuck" becomes the backbone of public policy

[malthaussen]

9. Well, opiate if you like.:)

The point is that some people (quite a few) aren't happy unless they have answers to the unanswerable. Snake-oil salesmen never lack suckers.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, tried to keep the Church out of government because they did not want to provide ammunition and weapons to those who would oppress. I do not think they, enlightened gentlemen that they were, realized that there would come a time when "God's Plan" would be seriously incorporated as part of public policy by a significant political party. They might have thought the First Amendment sufficient to the task, or they might have viewed things from a Federalist 10 perspective and thought that any such party would be checked by other factions, but I'd bet they never thought school boards would demand that Creationism be taught side-by-side with evolution as equally probable. But the problem with democracy is that it is difficult to defend against vocal, well-organized factions, which is why the Ancients believed that democracy must inevitably lead to demogoguery and tyranny.

-- Mal

[FiveGoodMen]

6. “Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;

Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

[Warpy]

12. Belief supplies them with certainty in an uncertain world

When they're starting to be crushed by adverse events, they haul out the irrational stuff and start to recite platitudes. It calms and centers them.

That's why they never say they don't know. Their mental equilibrium depends on thinking they do know.

[jeff47]

13. IMO, because "I don't know" leads to questioning

"I don't know" can lead to a search for answers, and those answers may not involve the church. So the flock is encouraged to just say "God did it".

[Locut0s]

14. Because their whole belief system would crumble if they let that thought in...

All religion is based on the absolute 100% belief in the existence of a deity in the complete absence of any proof for said deity's existence. All religion is predicated upon this. If they were to let in the possibility of "I don't know" even on other tangential issues, they would risk the whole facade crumbling down around them.

[Rob H.]

15. I think it boils down to preferring simple answers for very complex questions

Instead of admitting they don't know they can say, "Well, the Bible says..." which, for some of them, is meant to put an end to any meaningful discussion. A lot of religious beliefs fall apart under careful scrutiny and I think some believers are terrified of that.

[JNelson6563]

16. Ok, you guys might be sick of me telling you this.

Great OP and excellent discussion! I swear this little group of ours is often the only sanctuary of sanity in my day.

Julie

[Heddi]

17. I would ask it in the Religion group, but I don't for a few reasons:

1) the self-elected Arbiters Of All Things will decide that "Question about posts like this that feign sincerity and curiosity." They will impeach you and your motives by saying witty things akin to "You have revealed too much about yourself and how you feel about religion and religious people to claim that you are genuinely curious. " When you ask for clarification, they will bray how "Please help me understand" and "I honestly want to know/understand" are dead giveaways, along with "I am so confused by this" and "i guess there is no answer". They will suggest you are mocking instead of questioning. "Your views on religion and the religious are crystal clear. I do not believe you are curious at all. I think you hope for an opportunity to belittle and ridicule, and you may well get it, but I'm still going to call you on it". They will call the question a 'ploy' and poof, a ploy it is.

Then, when The Arbiters of All Things are painted in a corner, or called on their rudeness, they will close with something like "The OP is flame bait. The question is insincere. No one has to take it seriously"

They will then cease to have any further discussion, and instead mock the original poster and those who have posted in the thread out of one side of their mouth, and at the same time casting aspersions upon those who mock others for their belief and squash questions and enlightenment.

Some may call this "hypocrisy". I call it "the only way many of the religionsist posters in the religion forum can operate"

2) Someone will come along and say "oh, i've never heard any believers say that" and "in my experience, people who believe in God are more open-minded than Atheists!!11!". Their experience will trump anyone else's, and if you question it then you are being close-minded. Any attempt to share your experience will be met with pronouncements that you can't speak for everyone, you can't speak for anyone, and by the way, my internet is acting up / I have to go out for the night / oh, gosh, someone's at the door, gotta go!...so I have to go away and not deal with questions regarding my experience, or inconsistencies in my experience.

3) There won't be as honest answers as I feel there are here. I guess I feel like there, there is a wall up around some posters. THey speak in platitudes and esoteric thought but never get to the meat of the issue, or of their feelings. There is one poster there, only one, who I have seen that will say "Yes, I know my beliefs are inconsistent and don't make sense to other people, and I can't explain why I believe what I believe, but I do". Everyone else will find a nit to pick in something, "it" instead of "is" or pedantic bullshit like that to just derail the conversation. Then that turns into a war of "who can come up with the most smart-ass retort in the end"...It's like no one there has the heart to be honest and answer honestly. If more people would just say "yes, it doesn't make sense. But it makes me happy" or "I believe this because of X" then super. Great. Awesome.

But to pick nits. To mock. To belittle....that's what they have. That's all they have. I have my own beliefs...not religious, not spiritual. I think I've written them here....don't give a shit if anyone agrees or anyone thinks it's logical. It's my thoughts. My beliefs. If someone asks me, i'll be honest about them.

Why can't so many posters in the religion forum do that?

Whhy can't they say "yes, I support the Catholic Church despite it's views towards Women and GBLTer's. I support them despite their treatment of child sex abuse victims. I do it because it makes no sense to you, but it makes sense to me"

[JNelson6563]

18. Isn't it funny

how it seems easier to be completely honest for an atheist than it is for a believer? For some reason I find that a somewhat savory irony.

Always enjoy your posts Heddi! I share your frustrations and get a huge kick out of your humor.



Julie

[skepticscott]

19. What does it say about the intellectual foundation of religious belief

that on this whole site, there are no more honest and intelligent advocates for the existence of god and the value of religious faith than those we see ad nauseum in the Religion group? Should we laugh or pity them that such people are the best the religionists have here?

[mr blur]

25. I vote for laughter, they hate that more than anything.

I have actually tried rational discussion but they don't "do" that. As Dr. House remarked, "If you could have a rational discussion with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people.

If (for example) I were a proud Catholic and I couldn't answer any criticism of the RCC or my support of it with anything other than snide, smug drivel, I'd be ashamed of myself.

[skepticscott]

26. Shame is another thing

that is alien to many of them.

[Heddi]

27. But shame should come naturally to a believer, because shame is the name of the game

from day one:

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, recognized they were naked, and became ashamed of that nakedness, and were thrust out into the mean old world.

We (believers, as I was kind of once was) were/are taught to be ashamed of our own nakedness---our humanness, is what I take it. Ashamed of desires. Ashamed of feelings. Ashamed that we once really really wanted to have something that someone else had (covet). Ashamed that we said "oh jesus!" when a snake suddenly crossed our path. Ashamed that we mouthed off to mom. Ashamed that we were lazy, or did something besides church on sunday. Ashamed that we lied and said our homework fell into the tub instead of owning up that we didn't do it.

Ashamed that we looked at someone and got horny. Ashamed that we masturbated to that thought. Ashamed that we had sex out of marriage. Ashamed that we thought about someone else when we fucked our spouse. Ashamed that we can never live up to the perfection of Jesus.

Religion and shame go hand in hand. Catholic shame goes even greater...feel shame for divorcing your abusive spouse, and feel more shame that you fell in love with another person who was good and wholesome and believed the same religion you did, but you can never take communion again in that church, you can never be a member of that church.

Shame felt so deeply that you have to confess your sins, and feel ashamed for them, on a regular basis. You must pray for forgivness for your sins, your shame.

And in the end, when you're lying there taking your last breaths, feel ashamed that you could have, should have done more to be more Christlike. Which is impossible based on the rules of the game you're playing. You can never be like him, so you automatically lose. By being born you lose.

[skepticscott]

28. Well, guilt is certainly instilled deeply

into religious believers...guilt for as many freedoms of the mind, body and spirit as the church can make them feel, guilt even for being what they are. But shame for believing things that, in any other context, would have them branded as odd at best and insane at worst? Not so much.

Perhaps it's just a semantic thing.

[defacto7]

21. There are no better places on this site that can define the term "troll"

than the religion forum. Disruption and derailing are the basic tools necessary to be a successful poster or commenter in that forum both of which require a practised sense of deception and coercion which I would imagine are well instilled by the systems in which they have found their faith. I trashed that forum; it's a waste of time.

This group is an oasis of sorts for me as well. When honesty is a prerequisite to reality and we actually seek the weaknesses in our own arguments, I feel like I am part of the process of learning rather than some kind of sponge soaking up trite repetition. I'm not sure religionists are capable of understanding this perspective. Defending a dogma is not something I consider progressive thinking let alone learning. It's easier to parrot a point than to actually create it.

[trotsky]

23. You nailed it on all points.

The dishonesty, the hypocrisy, the judgmentalism, the evasion. There is no actual analysis or discussion of beliefs, because believers DON'T WANT THAT. The entire modern "discipline" of theology seems to be dedicated to find ways to keep belief from being analyzed - to construct philosophical escape hatches for when the walls of reason are closing in.

After all, according to quantum mechanics, all events are possible, so therefore Jesus definitely existed and you should shut up.

[skepticscott]

20. I hope that's not the case TOO often...

You deserve saner days than that, Julie

[LostOne4Ever]

22. Well I don't know for sure

but I suspect that a part of it is that saying I don't know carries more weight for a believer than a non-believer.

When they say I don't know they are implying that there is a chance that what they have been taught all their lives is a lie. That their parents, teachers, preachers, and friends are all wrong. They delegitimize everything they have been taught and every one around them who have told them that by denying what they have been told.

In short, peer pressure is a bitch.

I think another part of it is power. Admitting to not knowing is admitting to weakness. It is admitting that they are lacking in some way. It is my understanding that almost all human interaction can be boiled down into power dynamics. By admitting to not knowing they are possibly admitting to another that they are lacking in this area of knowledge and exposing themselves to ridicule from one who does know.

But this is just speculation on my part. I personally would rather admit to not knowing rather than claiming to know and then being proven wrong.

[cleanhippie]

24. It's really more of a case of "I don't want to look for a scientific reason for why..."

They just don't want to know.

[mr blur]

29. Jesus & Mo:

[dimbear]

30. OK, I know it's boring, but it's that it's better to assume the rustle in the weeds is a tiger.

Assuming it's a cricket would have gotten you eaten a thousand years ago.

Times change, we don't. That's why there's a premium on answers even when they're wrong.