|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: the value of believing 'wrong' things
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I can explain this thought too well, but let me try:
Maybe objective claims of what is correct or incorrect miss the point of something having value even if (at some level of objectivity) it can be proven to be wrong or overblown or exaggerated.
For example, I recently met some young people who had returned from a few days in a famous field in the South West of England. They spoke of a powerful touch of the Holy Spirit, feelings of elation and so on.
Let me quickly say that at their age I also experienced such things at similar kinds of events so I know what that feels like. On the other hand, I tend to have fairly skeptical views of these things these days, and much of what I heard sounded like hype. And the elation I've experienced at large 'worship events' feels to me to be very similar to that I've experienced at large sporting events.
But does it actually matter? Is there benefit in these young people in ascribing their experiences to a touch of God – even if it is just whipped up emotionism?
Or take a different example: a church is praying for a sick friend. After considerable 'effort' - vigils and the like - the friend gets better. It turns out that although he was sick, the illness was worse than thought and studies show that the vast majority of patients recover on their own. Does it really matter if people in the church are describing this as miraculous?
Or put another way, is belief just a choice?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Don't numerous self-help gurus advise that we must believe in ourselves? What about the Olympic athletes-- didn't most of them believe that they could win a gold medal? Most of them never will, but the belief has inspired them to excel.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Yes, it matters. Truth is important.
I think that there can be value in believing wrong things - on the assumption that your young people are mistaking emotion for the Spirit, that error might still give them faith to resist some temptation or the impetus to do some good, but the error itself is still wrong.
I think that God lets us make mistakes. I think he uses them for our good and for the good of others, sometimes. I don't think that is reason enough to stop caring about truth. We should not proclaim something to be a miracle unless we have good reason to.
On the specific examples you give, I would be much less quick to say that the miraculous explanation wasn't true, but on the assumption that it wasn't, I would still say that natural emotions and natural recovery from illness and good things that we can properly thank God for, without making them out to be something more than that.
[ 11. September 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the wrong things you believe are dangerous things, then we all (may) suffer for it. Perhaps you believe "women are inherently evil and should be controlled" -- Maybe it gives you a good feeling to believe that, and draws you closer to God. But it's clearly pernicious and has the potential to give rise to great evil. Other examples may come to mind.
Beliefs that are in accord with reality, it seems to me, are less likely to do so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I have mentioned before that one of my favorite movies is "Second-Hand Lions." In it, Robert Duvall makes this wonderful speech to his nephew. That strikes me as exactly right.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Right, what tclune said. Maybe it is less about whether something is right or wrong (correct or incorrect) but whether they are useful things to believe..
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
As others have indicated, the question would seem to be what result arises from the belief. A belief may not be harmful in itself, but the consequences which flow from that belief could be beneficial or harmful.
For example, it may be relatively harmless to believe that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Indeed, at one time that would not even be called a "belief" it was "reality" proven by the fact that you could stand on the earth and not feel it moving but could watch the sun and stars whirl around it--proof that the "truth" was that the earth stood still.
That belief/reality/truth could be harmless. As Sherlock Holmes commented (in A Study in Scarlet) what difference would it make to his day to day life whether the sun moved around the earth or the earth around the sun or around the moon?
On the other hand, that belief could become harmful if you take issue with somebody suggesting that, perhaps, the earth went around the sun. And, taking issue with that belief, you decide this heliocentrist should be put in prison or tortured or whatever until he recants.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Or put another way, is belief just a choice?
I am not sure I understand this question.
No. Let me rephrase that. I am sure that I don't understand the question.
In one sense, each person chooses to believe whatever they choose to believe, of course. On the other hand, if I truly believe in something, I would not personally see it as a choice--what would the other choice be? Not believing in something that I truly believe in? That is an inherent contradiction. If I truly believe in something for reasons that I find compelling, I cannot logically not-believe it until those underlying reasons are no longer compelling to me--i.e., I cannot "choose" to not believe something I believe in until I no longer believe in it. I would not call that a "choice."
Suppose I am a geocentrist--for the reasons stated above. The fact of my self-perception of non-movement of the earth (outside of the occasional earthquake) and my self-perception of the sun and stars moving across the sky convince me. My belief in geocentrism is a result of my conclusions from observation/perception/life experiences. I would not call it a belief but a "reality."
Then some smart-aleck mathematician comes along and points out that my explanation for the movement of the stars and planets is horribly complicated, convoluted and inadequate, what with retrograde motions and all. The smart-aleck then explains to me that all of this could more easily be explained if I simply accept that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun and stars are (relatively) not moving. Once I accept that this viewpoint more clearly describes the nature of things, I abandon my geocentrist view and become a heliocentrist. Again, I would not call it a "belief" but a "reality" based on my new understanding of The Way Things Work.
I suppose technically it is a "choice" of mine to be come heliocentrist, but really, because I am no longer convinced that geocentrism adequately explains things, I would not personally view it as a "choice"--my definition of what constitutes "reality" has changed. An outside observer might say that I made the choice to become heliocentrist, but from my own viewpoint I have not "chosen a belief," I have "accepted a reality."
Choice is a strange concept.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yes, it matters, particularly when there are real life consequences. My belief in prayer and the love of God has gotten me into a crisis of faith. Where a person may recover and it is attributed partly or fully to prayer, and another person does not recover yet prayers may be also said, means that the belief in the positive situation harmed those in the second. I have been harmed by this second idea.
That said, truth does not apply to things of aesthetic value. Things like art, music, well spoken words, and these can touch the feelings in ways that ring true to the soul, and the truth and falsity ideas cannot touch them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Truth matters, but the degree of harm caused by honest error is going to depend very much on individual circumstances.
There is also the problem that figurung out what exactly IS the truth can be very difficult. I wouldn't want to run down the religiously ecstatic teenagers' experiene simply because I had once gone through something similar that turned out to be phony. I might attempt to calm them down a tad, but who's to say that my experience is exactly parallel to theirs? They might have gotten luckier than I and hit something real. If I'm not sure, I prefer the Gamaliel approach--wait and see.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@hedgehog - I agree, choice is a strange concept in terms of faith. And I agree there are some things which can definitively be said to be right or wrong, like heliocentrism.
But what I'm trying to get at is that we can choose on some level what to believe. One might find amble evidence to believe the world is a dark and depressing place, one might also be able to find evidence it is a place of hope and excitement. I'm not trying to say you can explain away depression, but at some level we can consciously decide how we look at things and what to believe about them.
Or maybe it is a case of accepting that you are uncomfortable with something on the surface (say my example with the charismatic above), but choose to believe that this is unlikely to harm those involved. I could also chose to believe it is dangerous and evil and disassociate myself from those people, of course.
I dunno, it isn't an easy thing to articulate. When my friend told me that he was able to chose what to believe, it sounded ridiculous. I'm not so sure now.
@no_prophet - yes, I can see that. But even there, I have a choice to either believe that prayer is total bunk or to believe that generally it is harmless and/or sometimes it is beautiful/generous/important and/or occasionally it is harmful. I'm inclined to believe it is bunk, but maybe I need chose to believe something more positive about my religious compatriots.
@Lamb Chopped - that is sort of my point. I've experienced similar things, I interpret the words these young people use in a skeptical way. On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. So maybe it is more profitable to chose to believe that either it is harmless or that there might be something in it.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The pragmatic relativism of the OP is pretty much the zeitgeist. It's the standard I'll-considered path of least resistance in a nominally secular but essentially pluralistic culture.
Consequently, it probably is the most 'useful' and convenient to way of thinking about belief. But that's all it is and nothing more. For all of its apparent magnanimity it is, at its heart, a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't see it as relativism. I'm not saying that anything goes, just a choice about seeing things in terms of their benefits rather than whether they are right/wrong.
Of course, you can chose to believe something else about it if you like.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
But isn't the hidden claim of your position that the 'right' way of thinking about belief is in terms of benefit, not truth?I don't think you've abandoned all recourse to notions right and wrong or truth and error. I think you've simply moved to the definition of 'rightness' and 'truth' into the parameters of your own claim.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well as I said this is a difficult thing to discuss.
I believe that the charismatic is a load of old crap and hype and bunk. At the same time, I can chose to believe that it is either a) harmful and evil or b) mostly harmless.
I said as much in the title and original post of this thread.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I believe that the charismatic is a load of old crap and hype and bunk.
Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.
Right, I'll assume you've nothing useful to add then.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it seems to me that you've got to the nub of your own issue.
Right, I'll assume you've nothing useful to add then.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.
Listen tosspot, what I believe about any given issue is actually beside the point under discussion - I could have easily have chosen an issue which you felt strongly about.
I couldn't care less what you think about the charismatic, as it happens that is not the issue under discussion. If you had actually read and engaged with the title and opening post, you'd know that.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
What if the majority of people on earth had gone on and on believing that the earth was the centre of the universe, or that the earth was flat, or that you ought to bleed people to cure them of illness. What if this stunted the progress of scientific progress?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If you really believed the relativism of own OP you wouldn't be getting upset when someone disagrees with you. After all, there's no right and wrong and true and false is there?
[x-posted: to the long ranger]
[ 12. September 2012, 09:04: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you really believed the relativism of own OP you wouldn't be getting upset when someone disagrees with you. After all, there's no right and wrong and true and false is there?
I didn't actually say that. In fact I said the opposite. I said that there is a choice to be made about what to believe about people who accept wrong things. By wrong, I mean wrong. Read the OP.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Have I read the OP correctly or incorrectly?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said, such relativistic pluralism is a totalitarian system which can only feign tolerance until it's hidden absolutism is exposed.
Listen tosspot ...
You don't get to do that in Purgatory, it's a violation of Commandment 3. If it's a one off reaction, fine, you can drop it. If it represents a more enduring pissed-offness, please take it to Hell. But either way, cut out the personal insults here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Why don't we consider the OP in a different light. Forget about relativism, but may I suggest that:
- We don't know for sure that the Holy Spirit doesn't move, nor ever has, at these giant spectacular evangelistic events, do we? They may not be our cup of tea, but who are we to quench the Spirit?
- We don't know for sure that every healing we ever knew is purely down to natural law and medical science, and that God never answers prayer, nor intervenes, do we?
- So it could be that these young people were right all along, and we are wrong, same with those who believe their prayers have been answered.
So, instead of talking about "relativism", let's just keep an open mind about things we can't really be sure about.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's certainly correct that we don't know anything for sure. However, normally we go off what is reasonable, and for which evidence can be supplied.
Thus, it possible that I am being controlled by aliens. However, I am not haunted by this idea.
It is possible that some healings are miraculous. However, there is no evidence for that, and there cannot be, if we take evidence to mean something naturalistic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I recently met some young people who had returned from a few days in a famous field in the South West of England. They spoke of a powerful touch of the Holy Spirit, feelings of elation and so on.
Let me quickly say that at their age I also experienced such things at similar kinds of events so I know what that feels like. On the other hand, I tend to have fairly skeptical views of these things these days, and much of what I heard sounded like hype. And the elation I've experienced at large 'worship events' feels to me to be very similar to that I've experienced at large sporting events.
It kind of sounds as though you're a weary older guy who's not excited by faith anymore, and you resent younger people getting excited about faith.... You want them to be low-key, quiet and respectable about these things, just as you are! But I'm sure I've just got totally the wrong impression about that!
On the positive side, though, you could see faith as a journey. These young people will probably end up more like you once they've passed through the spiritual and emotionally fraught excitement of the Christian festival scene. Excitement isn't a permanent thing. It transmutes into something different over time.
Perhaps the journey is valuable for the experience that's picked up along the way, for the lessons that will be learnt, even though some of the things someone might believe along the way will be 'wrong'.
And in terms of the wider church, there's certainly some value in this kind of spirituality. To put it bluntly, it keeps some young people in the church. Things can be 'toned down' later. There seems to be a degree of movement between charismatic churches and the more low-key mainstream, depending on the various life-stages that people are going through. But it's far more likely that a spiritually hyped up charismatic teenager will enter middle age as a calm, reflective Anglican than for an indifferent atheist teenager to do so, so perhaps you shouldn't be too quick to disapprove of this kind of faith. Things will happen in their own time.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think it's dangerous to choose what you will believe based solely on how useful it is to you, and leaving out truth. There are many, many ramifications of believing a lie, and most of them are likely to be unknown to you when you are making the choice.* But generally speaking, we know that believing and acting in a way that is out of line with the facts is dangerous. Ask any child who has put on a Superman cape and attempted to fly from the top bunk bed.
So I think it most important that we follow truth as best we see it, and that we encourage others to do the same. (I don't like taking people in to the emergency room late at night.)
* of course, this notion of "choosing" what to believe is an odd one. It seems to me that you can "choose" a philosophical stance, or a metaphysical basis from which to operate, in an "as if I believed" way. Heck, you could even choose to live "as if I believed in Christ." It would not actually BE faith, though given human tendency to grow into whatever we're pretending to be, it might soon be. But until you actually, well, BELIEVE it, it isn't belief. It is a hypothesis held at arm's length. And it may even be in conflict with something you actually do believe but haven't yet verbalized to yourself, which lies at a deeper part of your being. And since action springs from those deeply believed things, just as often or more often than from consciously entertained hypotheses, in a case like that you're likely to find your actions contradicting each other. Which is painful.
Take an example. Suppose you have a man (I'm thinking of one I have known in the past, forgive the choice of example if it offends you) who is theoretically committed to "believing" that women can fill an executive position just as ably and productively as men. Yet at a deeper, less examined level, he really holds to a belief that women are somehow less capable, less useful, and thus less worthy of that kind of position.
Such a man will say all the "right" things. He may even hire a woman to fill that executive position, and make very PC speeches about how he intends to support her. All of this is in line with the hypothesis he has chosen to "believe". He goes away patting himself on the back for being such a progressive person.
And yet, the first time she hits a major snag at work that requires his authority and support to iron out, and naturally turns to him (as any underling would, male or female), he removes it. Acting on his true, deep-seated and mostly unacknowledged belief that women are incapable fools, he not only removes from her by fiat the authority she ought properly to have and must have to resolve the situation, but he signals to the whole company that whatever he may have said or done in policy, his true belief is that women don't belong in these positions.
The real life case I am thinking of involved him doing this to a series of women, but not to the men who filled parallel positions. He then bemoaned how impossible it was to find women who were actually capable of working at the level of the men (he was not undercutting).
Looking back at that ancient history, I can see that it would have been much, much better for everyone involved if he had admitted his true belief and acted on it openly rather than attempting to "choose a belief" which conflicted with his true deep opinion. It would have made him a sexist jerk, true; but he was already that. And at least the women would have known not to take up the positions he offered them, and the pain he put them them through with his mixed messages and actions.
(and yes, I really do think he had talked himself into believing that he believed; but when the rubber hit the road, it became clear that he really didn't.)
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(and yes, I really do think he had talked himself into believing that he believed; but when the rubber hit the road, it became clear that he really didn't.)
I wonder how many professing Christians are in the same boat. Quite a lot, probably.
But what do we suppose the harmful aspects of their "wrong" belief may be?
[ 12. September 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I think there is value in the guy continually stating that he values women even if his actions prove otherwise*. I can't see the harm in that (at least, surely being overt about his sexism would have been even worse, no?). Don't judge God's holy law by my inability to live up to it - as Tolstoy is said to have written.
*clearly if he is unable to function in the job, that is a different thing.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why don't we consider the OP in a different light. Forget about relativism, but may I suggest that:
- We don't know for sure that the Holy Spirit doesn't move, nor ever has, at these giant spectacular evangelistic events, do we? They may not be our cup of tea, but who are we to quench the Spirit?
- We don't know for sure that every healing we ever knew is purely down to natural law and medical science, and that God never answers prayer, nor intervenes, do we?
- So it could be that these young people were right all along, and we are wrong, same with those who believe their prayers have been answered.
So, instead of talking about "relativism", let's just keep an open mind about things we can't really be sure about.
This is the kind of thing I was expecting to be discussed and am still hoping will be discussed.
As far as I'm concerned the question is, what do we make of the fact that people smarter than us disagree with us about things that they have thought about more than us? And in response to this, I'm fairly settled with the idea of holding my beliefs lightly. What tempers this is the belief that a belief's value comes from the effects of holding such a belief - which gives me some leeway in being critical of dangerous beliefs.
For example, I'm not a trinitarian but I don't have an issue with people being trinitarians, except when they use it to exclude people such as myself.
I guess what I strongly dislike is when a belief is held arrogantly. I hold beliefs arrogantly myself, but it isn't to my credit. Perhaps the trick is to be confident about what you're confident about, but ever open to finding out you're misguided. Problem is that most people would say they do that... which is probably true, but I doubt they generally do it to anything close to the ideal extent.
Anyway, the belief that the content of a belief matters more than its effects is a challenge to my own views, and as such I'd like to hear more. I think it can be taken as a given that correct beliefs are generally going to have better effects, and beliefs with better effects are generally going to be more correct.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
This is the kind of thing I was expecting to be discussed and am still hoping will be discussed.
As far as I'm concerned the question is, what do we make of the fact that people smarter than us disagree with us about things that they have thought about more than us? And in response to this, I'm fairly settled with the idea of holding my beliefs lightly. What tempers this is the belief that a belief's value comes from the effects of holding such a belief - which gives me some leeway in being critical of dangerous beliefs.
I think this is what I meant in the original post. But I'm not sure what it means. How does anyone decide on which are dangerous and which are uplifting beliefs?
quote:
For example, I'm not a trinitarian but I don't have an issue with people being trinitarians, except when they use it to exclude people such as myself.
I guess what I strongly dislike is when a belief is held arrogantly. I hold beliefs arrogantly myself, but it isn't to my credit. Perhaps the trick is to be confident about what you're confident about, but ever open to finding out you're misguided. Problem is that most people would say they do that... which is probably true, but I doubt they generally do it to anything close to the ideal extent.
Well, I guess the problem with holding everything as some kind of provisional belief is that you're never really confident about anything. I struggle to believe that is a useful state to be in.
quote:
Anyway, the belief that the content of a belief matters more than its effects is a challenge to my own views, and as such I'd like to hear more. I think it can be taken as a given that correct beliefs are generally going to have better effects, and beliefs with better effects are generally going to be more correct.
Interesting. The truth will set you free.
Only.. I'm not sure it is like that. 'Correct' beliefs can be as bad as 'wrong' ones. Wrong beliefs might have better effects.
Reminding a small person that they're small, ignorant and never likely to amount to anything might be true, unless they're Einstein. Telling a child that they can become anything if they put their mind to it might well be untrue (if the statistics show that this isn't really true), but might inspire someone to break through to become the one person who does something unexpected and incredible.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think there is value in the guy continually stating that he values women even if his actions prove otherwise*. I can't see the harm in that (at least, surely being overt about his sexism would have been even worse, no?).
Wouldn't it be much better if he'd acknowledged (at least to one or two people) his struggles to conform to the social expectations of his company, and then got help to deal with them? The hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing something completely different is utterly poisonous, ISTM.
It's also worth saying, seeing as this is a website about Christianity (but not 'A Christian Website'!), that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrisy. Indeed, I gather he was the first to use the word in this sense of doing one thing and saying another, such was his hatred of the practice.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Lord Clonk, are you using the word 'arrogantly' in this context as a near synonym for 'conviction' or 'certitude', or are you referring to a particular way of expressing one's convictions and certitudes?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wouldn't it be much better if he'd acknowledged (at least to one or two people) his struggles to conform to the social expectations of his company, and then got help to deal with them? The hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing something completely different is utterly poisonous, ISTM.
Dunno. Maybe he wasn't even aware that he was behaving in that way and truly believed that he was being fair to everyone. Repeating to yourself the words of the kind of person you want to be is a good thing, in my view.
I don't think that is hypocrisy unless he is deliberately papering over the faults he is aware of in his own life and projecting an image of himself that he knows is not accurate. Maybe that is what is happening.
More often, in my view, people exhibit things they're not even aware of doing and are the kind of person they themselves mentally deplore. That is a lack of self-knowledge, not hypocrisy.
quote:
It's also worth saying, seeing as this is a website about Christianity (but not 'A Christian Website'!), that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrisy. Indeed, I gather he was the first to use the word in this sense of doing one thing and saying another, such was his hatred of the practice.
I'm no expert, but I think the word being used is the same one used of actors. Are one thing, am pretending to be something else.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
How does anyone decide on which are dangerous and which are uplifting beliefs?
Not to mention the question "dangerous to whom?" Dangerous to the believer? Dangerous to society? Dangerous to the ruling elite? I suspect that most of the beliefs that the Church leaders decry as "dangerous" actually fall under the latter.
quote:
Well, I guess the problem with holding everything as some kind of provisional belief is that you're never really confident about anything. I struggle to believe that is a useful state to be in.
It depends on how you look at it. Someone who's not really confident about their beliefs, as you put it, is far less likely to insist that others agree with them or to persecute others on the basis of those beliefs. I'd say that's better. Certainty leads to the Inquisition.
Just think how much more tolerant the world would be if all the hardline conservatives were "not really confident" about the various Dead Horse issues. Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just think how much more tolerant the world would be if all the hardline conservatives were "not really confident" about the various Dead Horse issues. Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?
Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too? As G K Chesterton once famously said: quote:
What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.
[ 12. September 2012, 13:21: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too?
No, because that would be a world full of persecution.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hmm, what if all the hardline liberals and revsionists chose a similar stance on the same issues? Would that produce a better world too?
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
of the 'wrong' people?
Of anyone who is a) weaker and b) disagrees with you (and thus disagrees with God), I suppose.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
Then your original answer *might* require reconsideration because I think both sides of the row bandy the word 'persecution' around far too easily.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, because that would be a world full of persecution...
...of the 'wrong' people?
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then?
Have we become so neurasthenic that being called a bigot now counts as "persecution?"
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.
While calling someone a bigot is perhaps a bar to fully reasonable debate, it nevertheless does not on its own amount to intolerance and is certainly not by itself persecution.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You suppose.
Yes, I suppose. What do you suppose would happen if the strong and 'correct' view was a conservative POV on abortion, say? Are you seriously telling me that there would be no witch-hunts or burnings at the stake?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then? Riiight, I can see that working...not.
While calling someone a bigot is perhaps a bar to fully reasonable debate, it nevertheless does not on its own amount to intolerance and is certainly not by itself persecution.
Ah, Dafyd. It's worse than you think -- Calling someone a bigot is one thing. But the persecution appears to reside in being tempted to call someone a bigot. Ah, brave new world...
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
There would be fewer abortions, I suppose.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The world I favour wouldn't involve persecution of anyone.
So Nick Clegg wouldn't be tempted to call people who disgree with him on a certain DH issue 'bigots', then?
Have we become so neurasthenic that being called a bigot now counts as "persecution?"
--Tom Clune
It exposes the illiberal nature of so-called liberalism.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There would be fewer abortions, I suppose.
Really. Is that what you suppose? Well it must be true then.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
