|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can you choose what to believe?
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Is it possible to choose what you believe, in the area of religion or anything else? Is this a wise or valid way of operating in this universe?
The subject came up because on the Universalism thread, I was advised to:
quote:
So why not go back a step and consider that Scripture can be broken, because not only the interpretation but also the writing was by fallible people who could be wrong?
I've heard other people talk about "choosing to believe" something before, and it just sounds really odd to me. For me, believing means evaluating all the evidence to the best of my ability and finding out the truth, insofar as the truth can be known. And then choosing my course of actions based on that understanding of reality. I operate this way in every area of life I can think of, from academic subjects to my social life (is he or is he not attracted to her?) to my beliefs about God. What I want, above all, is to get to the truth of a matter. Once I am satisfied I have that (or as much of that as I can, which sometimes isn't very), then I frame my future actions based on that understanding.
This all seems rather "yeah, duh" to me. But then I run into people on the Ship and elsewhere talking about choosing to believe X or Y--particularly in the area of religion and spirituality. And it just makes me think What?
So I'm wondering: Do you choose your beliefs? If so, how do you make yourself believe them after you've chosen them? And how does this differ from self-delusion, even dangerous self-delusion?
(Before anybody asks, I'm a Christian convert from nothingness. I wasn't brought up this way, I came in on the evidence.)
[ 09. April 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I also struggle with the idea of choosing our beliefs. You believe what you believe, and there's not much to be done about it.
However, I think that there can be other dynamics going on sometimes - often denial (of self or others). We don't want the comfort of our beliefs to be challenged so we avoid interaction with data or people that do challenge us (or demonize those people).
Or, we have actually, at the basest level changed our beliefs, but don't want the social or personal difficulty of admitting that, so we suppress our true beliefs and present our former beliefs as if we still hold them.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Time for a little Bertrand Russell: quote:
“If a person is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
Now sort out the difference between "instincts" and "beliefs".
It is quite clear that individuals can ignore any and all evidence in relation to a particular ingrained idea that they have, or that they will twist any evidence to suit their ingrained idea, whether that i.i. is an instinct or a belief - it may be so hidden in the subconscious that they do not realise what they are doing.
This is, after all, how Christians justify the various levels of judgmentalism, unlovingness and nastiness that they display towards the "sinner that should be loved despite the sin". If the negative values are applied towards THOSE sinners, the rules simply don't apply, because of the ingrained idea.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's very true. I'm wondering about those who claim to consciously pick and choose their beliefs, though. I mean, is that really a thing?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No way. It's totally deterministic. Which is why everybody is innocent. This time round.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that you can only choose what you SAY you want to believe: belief is more deeply held than what appears on the surface, and is influenced (or locked in) by too much of the earlier history of your life.
I was brought to Canada at the age of 2, but my parents were strongly influenced by the colonial need to "go back" to the mythical England from which they had come. I was dutifully dragged overseas too many times, and still feel an underlying "Britishness" that is, probably, almost completely fictional, 67 years later. My being a Canadian citizen for most of that time hasn't removed that ingrained idea.
I also suffer from a post-war socialistic bent, which cannot be overturned by the antics of our present government. Maintaining that "base" does, however, seem like a good idea! Apparently, one can consciously maintain a belief against all outside pressure.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
This is reminds me of what my Adlerian Psychology professor would say. Reality is what it is. Beliefs help us make sense of that reality. Truth comes from our interpretation of that reality.
Lamp Chopped, you say you look into Scripture to find out as best you can what is true. However it is your beliefs that are influencing the way you interpret Scripture thus coming to what you think is true. I would say that truth meaningful first for you, not necessarily others. But I imagine you will find some like minded people who will have some common understandings of the truth.
Let me give you an example. I am taking a class through the book of Job now. We have a person who is a conservative Christian, and a person who is actually the president of the University's atheist club. Both of them have quite divergent understandings of Job. I keep having to remind both of them to look at Job through the eyes of the Hebrews not through their preconceived beliefs. Both get quite frustrated with me for my insistence on looking through the eyes of the Hebrews, but I enjoy challenging them.
Do I expect to "convert" either one of them to my way of thinking? Not likely. But it is interesting how one looks at Job through the eyeglass of of the resurrection, and the other sees job through nihilistic prism.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I run into people on the Ship and elsewhere talking about choosing to believe X or Y--particularly in the area of religion and spirituality.
I'm interested in hearing from shipmates who recognize themselves in the above description and can explain themselves for us.... Because, honestly, I'm having trouble grasping what this position is that's being referred to here. Sorry, sometime I'm a Bear of Very Little Brain....
Lamb Chopped, are you referring to people who act, for example, on some version of Pascal's Wager? Or, who adhere to some version of "Credo ut intelligam" ("I believe so that I may understand")?
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Interestingly, Fred Clark has something to say about this today: "Pay attention to how people describe the Bible" which makes the point that what you do in relation to reading the Bible reveals what you actually believe, rather than what you say is going on.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry, something weird happened and I reposted the previous item.
[ 09. April 2014, 23:51: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@OP
To a degree. I speak English and follow Christianity because this is where I was raised. If I'd been raised elsewhere I'd speak and believe elsewise. yet, this argument is pointless because I was raised here and this is the reality, and there is no evidence of a parallel universe where I am a different person.
If I had not had any numinous experiences, by which I mean "felt or perceived divine experiences", I would have more choice. I used to think this was enough to make me believe within a narrower set of choices, i.e., not if I would believe, but merely choosing from the iterations of possible variations of belief. But then God seems to have been both present and absent at various times, and in what seems to be the most abjectly cruel way was absent specifically when it was the cruelest, and thus, put my belief at all in peril.
Yet, still I believe, yet, less from the thinking and more from the doing. Which is a rather stark and nasty lesson. As if I crossed through a doorway and the way behind was lost always. Major change. Major everything.
And I find the "absolutely convinced' much more difficult to talk with and deal with now. Because, apparently, I am not allowed to have any real evidence for God except deciding to have belief. As crap as that sounds and is.
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is it possible to choose what you believe, in the area of religion or anything else? Is this a wise or valid way of operating in this universe?
The experimental evidence says no.
Our decision making processes are within the unconscious and based upon the interplay of our genetic inheritance and our experience.
Incognito and Free Will are loaded with references to experiments which demonstrate the point.
The research has major implications other than in the area of religious (un)belief. At a basic level, there is a set of genes the possession of which means that your probability of committing a violent crime increases by a factor of almost nine compared to those who don't possess them.
Aggravated Assault - x8
Homicide - x10
Armed Robbery - x13
Sexual Assault - x44
The vast majority of incarcerated persons carry these genes as do 98.4% of those on death row.
(Figures from US DoJ)
Clearly this subset of humanity is massively more dangerous to society than the rest of us - one might think that we need to protect ourselves against those who carry such genes - unfortunately that would present severe practical difficulties*
Horseman Bree
Time for a little Bertrand Russell:
Commonly known as Confirmation Bias
*that set of genes is commonly known as the Y chromosome - if you have it you are male.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To move away from religion for a moment, do you believe in Democracy, Monarchy or Anarchy? If so, are the reasons irrefutable?
I'm a non-believer in God. But I would ask believers if there is a difference in believing a god exists and worshipping that god.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is it possible to choose what you believe, in the area of religion or anything else?
I think it is a bit of a fallacy to think we believe things only on evaluation of evidence. So, at some level, we all have chosen to believe something.
Can one truly changeone's beliefs consciously? Yes, I think so.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I don't think one can choose what to believe. I do think it is possible (though very difficult) to choose to enter the hypothetical mood, to genuinely inhabit another world view without judging it from one's own preconceived perspective. Sometimes this will result in a change to one's own world view. Most people resist this intensely.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Of course we choose our beliefs. Anyone who has read any NLP will recognize this. For example http://www.lifebeyondlimits.com.au/nlp-insights/beliefs-and-how-they-effect-you.html
We can never know enough to know what reality is. All we can do is choose what evidence we accept and what we ignore. Based on our choices, we reason to give us belief.
If you use scripture as evidence to know the truth, you are choosing to believe that scripture is truth. Many make a different choice and draw different conclusions.
I choose to believe what I've written above. You are free to choose otherwise. (In doing so, you prove me right. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Or maybe we can just recognise rancid snake-oil when we smell it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(Before anybody asks, I'm a Christian convert from nothingness. I wasn't brought up this way, I came in on the evidence.)
That's it.
You quoted me in the OP. I didn't say 'choose' I said 'consider'.
Which is what you did originally, when you came to faith, so did I. I have fine tuned those considerations during my journey of faith and come to some different conclusions. I still believe in God - but my view of the God I believe in has expanded and changed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
People come to faith via many ways and none of them has much to do with either "choice" or "consideration" which are the options listed above.
Initially what brings us to faith is very often a "happenstance". Unbidden; unexpected; unlooked for. And the context in which it happens is determinative of what we initially believe. Going (unwillingly?) to a Billy Graham evangelistic rally and being converted invariably means starting off the Christian life on the basis of "The Bible says". We start off with face-value acceptance. Later 'consideration' may lead us to explore what the words mean and this in turn leads us to examine a whole range of issues; contextual, linguistic etc and this is where "choice" applies.
There is yet another angle on all this.. Someone once argued that what we believe ( or choose to believe?) is more a matter of temperament than anything else. People who are fundamentally insecure in themselves will go for a Faith and Belief System that offers security. Anything which threatens that is ruled out and so "consideration" is not an option.
Which is to say that, for many people, neither choice nor consideration play a significant part in what they believe. Initially at least.
[ 10. April 2014, 08:47: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
As with so many issues, it hinges on definition.
If by "believe" you mean "be convinced of in your heart of hearts" then I suspect the answer is No.
If you mean take something as a basis to act on, and actively suppress doubts about, then I would say Yes.
Some would say that the latter is a wrong way to go, but again I disagree, although I admit it is never ideal.
For example, people suffering even mild depression can find it difficult to feel in their hearts, things that they know with their minds are correct, and so they have to will to believe them. This may be an analogy for faith, with sin being the analogy of depression. If we lived fully in the presence of God we would be always convinced, but we don't, so we may have to will to believe.
Another case, is where we know we are skeptical and indecisive by nature but come to the conclusion that of the three options: believe, disbelieve, sit-on-the-fence, the latter is the worst option. In which case we have to choose between 1 and 2 knowing that the evidence is imperfect and we may never know for sure.
A further instance is where we choose to trust experts, and believe, not based on our own independent research, but as part of our decision to accept the expert's view.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
For me, believing means evaluating all the evidence to the best of my ability and finding out the truth, insofar as the truth can be known. And then choosing my course of actions based on that understanding of reality. I operate this way in every area of life I can think of, from academic subjects to my social life (is he or is he not attracted to her?) to my beliefs about God. What I want, above all, is to get to the truth of a matter. Once I am satisfied I have that (or as much of that as I can, which sometimes isn't very), then I frame my future actions based on that understanding.
I would agree with all of this, excepting that I don't consider it to be a process that ever ends. There is always new evidence, and there are always new ways and means of evaluating old evidence. All the evidence you have to date may be pointing to the conclusion that he isn't attracted to her, but if you see him kissing her tomorrow it's perfectly reasonable to reevaluate that conclusion regardless of how satisfied you were with it up to that point!
The quote from the Universalism thread in your OP seems to me not to be about choosing to believe something regardless of the evidence, but about reexamining that evidence in a new light. And that is definitely a choice we can all make.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Dang, what a great bunch of answers. Lots to chew on for me. And I'm glad to see stuff from both sides. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think we do have a definition problem going here, as Anteater pointed out and Palimpsest exemplified. I "believe in" Jesus differently than I "believe in" a political or economic position. And those two are different again from "believing in" gravity.
With regards to the pol/economic theory, "believe" means "prefer" or "accept as the best available at this moment." And that's fairly weak--if a brighter and better theory came along tomorrow, I could easily abandon my theory-of-the-moment and be off after the new one, with no heartburning. Though I'm not sure even this very mild form of belief is chosen, either. I don't think I could force my brain to believe in communism as a desirable thing, given the evidence for how it [doesn't] work in the real world.
With regards to gravity, "believe in" comes very close to "know." It means I take this without questioning, because it has always held true in the past and I have never seen a counter-example. I don't actively consider evidence against it (YouTube videos etc. notwithstanding) because the evidence in favor is overwhelming and always has been, and I have better things to do with my time than reconsider. In this case belief is definitely NOT chosen. I can't believe in non-gravity, even though it would be fun sometimes.
But then there's belief in Jesus. And that adds a whole personal dimension to the believing, the dimension of trust. I don't think I had a choice in believing in him propositionally--the bit about him being both God and man, about what he did to rescue us, about the resurrection, etc. That "belief" forced itself on me. But I DO have a choice whether I'm going to rely on him in times of trouble, etc. etc. In other words, to trust him--or not. (I'm facing this right now as I try to make it through a scary jobless period.)
So the last form of belief (= trust in a person) is to some extent chosen. Though I'm not sure it's 100%, because I don't think I could force myself to trust/believe in someone who had already shown himself to be untrustworthy on multiple occasions--such as certain individuals in my life who have betrayed trust over and over again. No matter how I may forgive them, I'm never going to trust them again. It just ain't happening.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I had a choice in believing in him propositionally--the bit about him being both God and man, about what he did to rescue us, about the resurrection, etc. That "belief" forced itself on me.
By that do you mean "I simply can't not believe it"?
Because, if you do, I know what you mean.
I simply can't believe that there is no God. I have tried. Even when I try, and in the darkest of places She is still there, holding me.
But everything about God is up for consideration and re-evaluation.
I choose to follow Jesus and, because of this, call myself a Christian. But I hold onto my Church's tenets very lightly. Especially the one I attend, which is con-evo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's mostly what I mean, though I think I'd go a bit further with the doctrine than you. Not on the basis of "the church says so," though. I chose my church based on the doctrine and not the other way (being a rebel at heart, and not patient enough)
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's perhaps another thread, but the reference to 'orthodoxy' to me is always problematic, because what is orthodox confines faith to the thinking, even if expressed in the 'doing' of liturgy. I think the doing is at least as important. Faithful practice of faith.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
One of the most serious barriers to religious belief is that we do not choose our own capacity to understand. I believe in the Higgs-Bosun particle (whatever that is!) because a large number of the people I trust say they've found it (whatever it is!)
But I believe in Jesus because I feel that somehow he "speaks for himself" - especially when what he says is at odds with what Christians believe.
I do not believe in a miraculous resurrection from the dead - in the unique way in which Christians refer to Jesus) because I do not trust the majority view which propagates it. It's not simply that I do not understand - it's because I do understand the way some human frailty expresses itself, which gets in the way of trust.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I over stated above a bit. My point is to see a rebalancing of the doctrinal aspects with the living and doing aspects.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
After some thought, which included autobiographical musing (a.k.a., navel gazing), I think I finally have something relevant to contribute to this thread....
I really don't see my Christian belief as a choice. It is something I feel compelled to. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could choose not to be a Christian. I'm the lone "religious" person in a family of people who are comfortably indifferent to religion. I look at my parents and my brother and his family and I sometimes think, "Gee, it would be nice not to worry about God, etc. the way they don't worry about God, etc." And I have tried! More than once! It just didn't work. I always ended up "getting religion," something other than Christianity, which ended up leaving me deeply dissatisfied. To my family, I have appeared as a religious dabbler: "What religion does Thomas belong to this week?" But, in fact, Christianity was always at the core, always what was really at issue. Having finally figured that out, I've "settled" that this is where I'm staying. I can't escape Jesus!
I can't choose not to be a Christian. But, also, I can't choose to believe what I don't believe. I can't make myself believe in biblical infallibility. I tried! That try sent me out of Christianity for ten miserable years.
I originally become a Christian through conservative evangelicalism, and the message I got in that tradition was that I couldn't be a Christian if I didn't accept the infallibility of the Bible. I accepted that claim. So, when I could no longer believe the Bible was infallible, I decided I could no longer be a Christian. Which meant, really, that I let other people decide on my faith for me.
It took disconnecting biblical infallibility from faith in Christ for me to be able to come back to Christianity. Nowadays, I regularly encounter the old assertion: "You can't be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is infallible." And, lately, I've also encountered the claim that I can't be a Christian if I don't believe in eternal damnation.
But, to repeat myself, I can't make myself believe what I don't believe. So, maybe I am on my way to Hell. But, if I am, my condition is no different than it would were I not a Christian.
Sorting this out, I was helped by a statement from (of all people!) a medieval Japanese Buddhist teacher, Shinran, who taught a version of Buddhism that focuses on pure, unmerited grace. His critics insisted he was going to the Buddhist version of Hell because he rejected the rigorous practices of other Buddhist sects. His response: quote:
I have no idea whether the nembutsu [placing pure faith in a savior Buddha named Amida] is truly the seed for my being born in the Pure Land ["Heaven"] or whether it is the karmic act for which I must fall into hell. Should I have been deceived by Master Honen [Shinran's teacher] and, saying the nembutsu, were to fall into hell, even then I would have no regrets. The reason is, if I could attain Buddhahood by endeavoring in other practices, but said the nembutsu and so fell into hell, then I would feel regret at having been deceived. But I am incapable of any other practice, so hell is decidedly my abode whatever I do.
If simple trust in Jesus isn't enough, "hell is decidedly my abode whatever I do."
My gosh, that was self-indulgently verbose! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 10. April 2014, 17:09: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I basically agree with that whole position, though I came to a different set of conclusions regarding the Bible. But certainly the Ship is living proof that one can be a Christian and not hold to inerrancy, or non-universalism, or whatever.
And yes, if trusting in Jesus means I end up in hell, so be it. I think it'd be better to do that and end there than to force myself into whatever the "correct" teaching is and get into that heaven. (meaning: If Jesus isn't there, I don't wanna go.)
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is it possible to choose what you believe, in the area of religion or anything else?
I think it is a bit of a fallacy to think we believe things only on evaluation of evidence. So, at some level, we all have chosen to believe something.
Can one truly changeone's beliefs consciously? Yes, I think so.
I don't understand how you get from "I think" to "So...we have all chosen" Could you pretend it's a maths question and show your working please?
"Can one truly change...?" Though I probably dislike it as much as you the experimental evidence seems, quite unequivocally, to disagree with you.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Of course we choose our beliefs. Anyone who has read any NLP will recognize this. For example http://www.lifebeyondlimits.com.au/nlp-insights/beliefs-and-how-they-effect-you.html
We can never know enough to know what reality is. All we can do is choose what evidence we accept and what we ignore. Based on our choices, we reason to give us belief.
If you use scripture as evidence to know the truth, you are choosing to believe that scripture is truth. Many make a different choice and draw different conclusions.
I choose to believe what I've written above. You are free to choose otherwise. (In doing so, you prove me right. )
Of course we choose our (un)beliefs - it's just that that choice is, despite the free will story we tell ourselves, not a product of conscious deliberation - it is inevitable based on the balance of our genes and our experience.
We don't change our mind because we're clever, we change it because the information available to our unconscious brain processes varies sufficiently to produce a different (inevitable) result to that which it (inevitably) produced from the previous, lesser, set of information.
Why do people with irrational beliefs seek to flood their targets' brains only with data that reinforces their crackpot ideas and restrict access to alternative views? "Study our revelatory books and ignore unhelpful tomes" - "listen to us real believers and have nothing to do with family members who don't share the truth" - "don't look at websites that are the work of the enemy" - "immerse yourself in our environment and shun the wicked ways of the world". Because it works better (for a given value of "better") than presenting balanced inputs.
My (non-professional) involvement with elderly people whose mental capabilities are reducing suggests that the process also works in reverse - changes occur when the information base available to the unconscious mind reduces.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
It seems to me that there is a difference between an intellectual realisation and an ingrained mental response. And we can choose to turn the former into the latter, or not, and as far as religion goes that makes a crucial difference. The mere intellectual realisation "God exists" by some argument is dry and impotent, and given the fickleness and weakness of the human mind, may soon get lost again. It is something quite different to have "God exists" as a standard mental backdrop, which then shapes thought, speech and action. And we make a choice, or perhaps somebody made a choice for us when we were young, to turn the religious thought from a novelty item into a part of our mental furniture. Often this happens more through "doing" than "thinking". Anyway, my point is that we all choose what to believe in the sense of ingraining faith, in moving it from the foreground of the considering and deliberating mind to the background which shapes the mind in its considerations and deliberations.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don't understand how you get from "I think" to "So...we have all chosen"
Alright, how about this modification?
It is a bit of a fallacy to think we believe things only on evaluation of evidence. At some level, we all have chosen to believe something.
The maths? Being born into a religion is the most common manner of acquiring a religion. This is less choice than familiarity.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Though I probably dislike it as much as you the experimental evidence seems, quite unequivocally, to disagree with you.
Sam Harris might exhibit no doubt, but others, even within the deterministic community, see the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
You have chosen to accept his view rather than another.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Why do people with irrational beliefs seek to flood their targets' brains only with data that reinforces their crackpot ideas and restrict access to alternative views? ... Because it works better (for a given value of "better") than presenting balanced inputs.
How do you define 'rational'? I don't believe in God but few of SoF posters seem 'irrational' to me - they just have some beliefs I don't share. Or am I the irrational one?
But, even if you have a definition we can all agree on, is it only people with irrational beliefs who behave as you describe? You mentioned 'confirmation bias' earlier but that applies both ways: take input from both sides and you'll tend to strengthen the beliefs you hold and more easily see the flaws in opposing arguments. You end up with a stronger sense of how right you are and how wrong others are because of your starting point. I think Bertrand Russell took the idea in his quote from David Hume who pointed out that when two arguments have equal weight it is our emotional attitude which determines which we accept.
And how do you judge what counts as balanced: should I balance what Amnesty International says about N Korea with what its supporters say? Do you make a point of reading newspapers whose stance you profoundly disagree with?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
To "believe" in something is to make it part of your consciousness and behavior. In the case of religion the behavior will be dictated by the tenets of the religion; usually moral regulations.
Imagine a child who is taught that the Easter Bunny is real and will deliver the goodies the child wants; maybe with proscriptions about being good. Now the child grows and encounters the truth about the Bunny from his friends. Will he/she continue to espouse the Easter Bunny just to get the goodies?
What will happen when science proves Stephen Hawking to be correct when he says "God is not necessary" (in creation)?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It seems to me that there is a difference between an intellectual realisation and an ingrained mental response. And we can choose to turn the former into the latter, or not, and as far as religion goes that makes a crucial difference. The mere intellectual realisation "God exists" by some argument is dry and impotent, and given the fickleness and weakness of the human mind, may soon get lost again. It is something quite different to have "God exists" as a standard mental backdrop, which then shapes thought, speech and action. And we make a choice, or perhaps somebody made a choice for us when we were young, to turn the religious thought from a novelty item into a part of our mental furniture. Often this happens more through "doing" than "thinking". Anyway, my point is that we all choose what to believe in the sense of ingraining faith, in moving it from the foreground of the considering and deliberating mind to the background which shapes the mind in its considerations and deliberations.
I think I go along with the majority of that - and my previous post was very crassly put, seeming to suggest that the majority of Chrisians are unreliabel.
Not what I meant at all, honest. I have neither the scientific nor the theological understanding of IngoB. The fact that I rely on better-educated people to enable me to come to an informed decision still leaves that unfathomable gap, doesn't it? There's many a Christian I would entrust with my very life, but still not rely on 100 percent in matters of religious belief.
The ones I tend to trust more are those who have taken, or are prepared to take, the "leap of faith" in both directions, because there is no high neutral fence from which to view both positions.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, my point is that we all choose what to believe in the sense of ingraining faith, in moving it from the foreground of the considering and deliberating mind to the background which shapes the mind in its considerations and deliberations.
I'm sure that's true in many cases, but not always. My wife was the youngest child (with four older siblings) a CoE vicar and his very devout wife. Believing in God was never an issue: she no more doubted it than she did the existence of Scotland. She didn't think there was any question of God's existence. As she grew older she naturally took part in church activities, summer camps, retreats and so on. Uncles, aunts, brother, sisters, her parents friends and godparents all reinforced her world view. There was no 'choice' since it never occurred to her there was an alternative.
Conversely, apart from a couple of years around 5-6 attending Sunday school, I had no interaction with anybody religious. I knew from an early age that, if asked, I should say I believed in God because otherwise I might get into trouble (my mother never told me why). So it wasn't clear I ever made a 'choice' not to believe - I never knew belief was expected as far as I can remember.
Once we are older we may change our beliefs but my experience suggests that people rarely give up beliefs which 'work for them'. There needs to be a major pull to something else or a push from where you are which, metaphorically is worth the effort of rearranging all you beliefs. IconiumBound's example of the Easter Bunny isn't comparable to religious belief. If you are part of a religion it affects a big part of your life (as far as I can tell). Giving up on the Easter Bunny is no big deal - you parents aren't going to fall on their knees and beg you to reconsider. Changes of belief which affect your whole life (or your view of yourself) on the other hand need a big reason to make the change worthwhile.
I never had a reason to change my atheism. My wife drifted away from religion as she moved away from the family home (as did her siblings) and made new friends who, she realised, saw the world differently. Identifying with them was more important than what she came to see as childish silliness.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I haven't read this thread and people have probably already said this, but I think that what a person actually believes is not really important since I for one am constantly second-guessing myself. What is more important is the set of beliefs that a person chooses to act as if they believe in. Some of our actions we know are wrong but we do anyway, but to the degree that we choose to do what we believe to be right and avoid what we believe to be wrong - whatever the moral framework is that calls those some things right and those other things wrong are the "beliefs" of ours that matter. I think there is a good deal of choice with regards to this, in a society as free as mine, at least. Addiction and other things do get in the way, though, as I already said.
Anything else that we say we believe in, whether or not we chose to believe in them or not, is just an intellectual exercise.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
IconiumBound asked: quote:
What will happen when science proves Stephen Hawking to be correct when he says "God is not necessary" (in creation)?
If memory serves, SH was commenting on a comment of Isaac Newton's that said he (IN) did not believe the universe just formed but was created. Current theories concerning quantum fields envisage virtual particle pairs appearing and disappearing due to vacuum fluctuations, which implies that the creation of "stuff" is implicit within the laws of physics and does not require an external cause. Similar theories are involved with the appearance and inflation of the universe.
Incidentally he also went on to say that you could still say that you believed in god as a sort of amalgam of the laws of nature, but that would not be a personal god.
Indeed so, but the nature of Judeo-Christian theistic belief is not that the quiddity of god is defined in this way. Rather, it is given in the OT tetragrammaton and the NT ego eimi* statements, which are interpreted as telling us that God is being itself, not that he is some kind of very big bloke (VBB) hidden from sight. And that a personal God is defined as being one in relationship, not again a VBB, nor an abstraction.
But as I say I think the context is important and you will run into all kinds of philosophical problems if you try to generalize it.
(* = I am)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don't understand how you get from "I think" to "So...we have all chosen"
Alright, how about this modification?
It is a bit of a fallacy to think we believe things only on evaluation of evidence. At some level, we all have chosen to believe something.
The maths? Being born into a religion is the most common manner of acquiring a religion. This is less choice than familiarity.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Though I probably dislike it as much as you the experimental evidence seems, quite unequivocally, to disagree with you.
Sam Harris might exhibit no doubt, but others, even within the deterministic community, see the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
You have chosen to accept his view rather than another.
I see no justification for why it's "a bit of a fallacy" - nor any explanation as to how you know that we "have all chosen to believe something". Doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you present only opinion. I doubt any of us agree with everyone else's (often competing) points of view simply because they state their opinion as unsupported fact. Denying choice is involved when habituation is present undermines your argument?
Talking of support -
1 - I didn't only reference Sam Harris.
2 - who are the "others, even within the deterministic community," that you talk of?
Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Perhaps the nearest analogy is that of weather forecasting; if we could gather all the detail of every variable, were able to apply the data instantly to our model, could accurately weight all the competing effects and had sufficient computing power to make sense of it all we, theoretically, could predict the weather with total accuracy. In practice all we can do is gather that subset of cost-effectively available data which seems most likely to have been useful in past and make intelligent (and often remarkably accurate) guesses based thereon - as we do with trying to work out how others will react to situations.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
There was a time when I wanted to walk away from what had become a destructive force in life. So I "chose" not to believe any more. It never quite worked.
A decade and more passed. Stuff happened. I felt like I needed the God I had been ignoring. So I started to pray again, I started to attend church again and so on. It's been as hard to start again as it was to stop.
So can you choose to believe? I dunno but I'm trying.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Why do people with irrational beliefs seek to flood their targets' brains only with data that reinforces their crackpot ideas and restrict access to alternative views? ... Because it works better (for a given value of "better") than presenting balanced inputs.
How do you define 'rational'? I don't believe in God but few of SoF posters seem 'irrational' to me - they just have some beliefs I don't share. Or am I the irrational one?
But, even if you have a definition we can all agree on, is it only people with irrational beliefs who behave as you describe? You mentioned 'confirmation bias' earlier but that applies both ways: take input from both sides and you'll tend to strengthen the beliefs you hold and more easily see the flaws in opposing arguments. You end up with a stronger sense of how right you are and how wrong others are because of your starting point. I think Bertrand Russell took the idea in his quote from David Hume who pointed out that when two arguments have equal weight it is our emotional attitude which determines which we accept.
And how do you judge what counts as balanced: should I balance what Amnesty International says about N Korea with what its supporters say? Do you make a point of reading newspapers whose stance you profoundly disagree with?
I don't suggest that anyone is irrational - it is possible to think rationally and come up with an irrational result - all it needs is to start from the wrong place. If you were asked the direction of travel to London it would be rational for you to reply "Go west". If I did so I would end up with wet feet and nearer to Lowestoft than London. I would have correctly used rational thought to ensure that I kept heading westward, (compass, GPS, A14 roadsigns, position of the sun, stars and moon etc,) but I wouldn't get to the place I wanted to be. When I was inside my family's bubble of Christianity I would have thought that "Who do think did make it then?" was a killer response to anyone who had ventured the opinion that "God didn't make the universe". Now I think that that's the wrong question - we're not entitled to ask "Who" until we've established that a) the universe was made and b) it had to be made by someone - I'd have started in the wrong place wouldn't I?
You're right that I oversimplified - but coming from a background in which effectively everyone held a particular world view which was presented both a) as fact and b) exclusively I suggest that balance was not available - indeed it was deliberately excluded. I have observed* that people who hold beliefs which they cannot support with evidence (as in something which makes their opinion evidently correct rather than merely one of a number of possible outcomes) tend to be those who are most keen to discourage free access to contrary ideas, who tend to use arguments from authority and who belittle their opponents rather than their opponents' ideas. My experience may be atypical.
* not just my childhood - I'm about to spend a week with evolution denying Southern Baptist YECs who practice home-schooling, only use "approved" search engines, defer to their pastors and pity those who can't see things that are so obvious to them that they don't need to justify their "knowledge" - and they're truly lovely people and we shall have a great week.
"Do you make a point of reading newspapers whose stance you profoundly disagree with?" I gave up on newspapers many years ago - but I do read many more SoF threads than I comment upon.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Similar experiments give us equal grounds to believe that we don't reach our beliefs by processes of logical evaluation of evidence. Rationality and evidence are just as much stories that we tell ourselves as choice is. To call beliefs irrational is meaningless if there's no such thing as rationality.
So there's a paradox: if the experiments give us reason to believe the conclusions you're telling us, then those results aren't true; if the conclusions are true then we have no reason to believe them.
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Similar experiments give us equal grounds to believe that we don't reach our beliefs by processes of logical evaluation of evidence. Rationality and evidence are just as much stories that we tell ourselves as choice is. To call beliefs irrational is meaningless if there's no such thing as rationality.
So there's a paradox: if the experiments give us reason to believe the conclusions you're telling us, then those results aren't true; if the conclusions are true then we have no reason to believe them.
if rationality were just a story then it would exist as a story - belief could still be irrational because it didn't fit with the story though couldn't it? Presumably you hold that God exists as a story?
Basically though - No - I don't agree with your conclusion. If I feel ill, go to the doctor and get a blood test which shows a validated specific indication of the presence of a particular bug is that not evidence for that bug's existence? And if either bug or indication can be seen under a microscope is that merely a story? And if I take a prescribed medicine which has previously demonstrated its effectiveness in randomised, double-blinded, placebo controlled trials (evidence again?) and recover is that not evidence that the medication may be effective? And if many thousands of people undergo the same diagnosis, treatment and recovery whilst other thousands have the same diagnosis, get no treatment and die in a manner directly attributable the infection does not the evidence become much, much stronger? Similarly, if we agree that 1,2,3,4,5,6 is the generally accepted sequence of consecutive whole numbers in a denary system it is rational to conclude that 2+2 = 4 and that 2+2 = 1+3 = 6-2 = 4. Rationality exists and much religion is not rational as it is based on assumptions (faith) rather than the irrefutable sequencing of cause and effect.
Scientists devise experiments on the basis of repeatability - they don't factor in a miracle-variable and they don't assume that the results they get are merely a story. And yet evidence-based science has given us vaccination, fMRI scanners and global mobile communications whilst also putting men on the Moon, escaping the solar system and photographing deep-sea thermal vents. Powerful stuff for stories. So no I don't buy the excuse for religion that it's really just like science because, at the end of the day, they're both stories. The two are fundamentally different and ultimately incompatible.
Actually we do to some extent agree - we don't use logic to evaluate belief choices - we use, unconsciously, the evidence we have. If all we have is overwhelmingly one-sided and of poor quality we still have no option but to go where that leads. Often the one-sidedness will have the effect of restricting/suppressing the ability to think critically. Logically we would not believe in miracles, the usually-beneficial-to-someone-but-harmless-to-the-planet, occasional and unpredictable suspension of the laws of physics and we would not believe in a deity who takes it's ire out on 7 billion plus people because two of them did something it decided was wrong (and the hapless pair didn't even have the knowledge that they could be wrong) - but millions do don't they? Whilst it is often said that it is not possible to use logic to argue someone out of a choice they made without the use of logic it may, if one can grab the ear, be possible to present such ideas as to stimulate the desire to investigate the validity of our beliefs.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Maybe part of the problem here is the use of the word "believe" to mean something like "practice one's religion" ? Maybe the relationship between belief, choice and action is clearer in a different context ?
There's been a lot of media coverage of a certain murder trial in South Africa. Many people have formed on the basis of that coverage beliefs as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
For the vast majority, such beliefs make not the slightest difference to their lives. But it seems to me that the process of forming the belief would be much the same if you were a member of the jury (if there was a jury).
The process is probably not fully rational. It may be influenced by what others think. Or by whether the testimony of the accused comes across as "emotionally true". Or the cultural gap between gun-carrying and gun-free societies.
If you were on the jury, you might come to a firm conclusion as to his guilt or otherwise and then cast your vote the opposite way. Because of other considerations - reasonable doubt, fair trial etc.
So the natural description seems to be that my belief is an unchosen passive reaction to the evidence I have (which is both a tiny fraction of and wider than the judicial evidence, more like relevant bits of my total life experience). And that belief is a significant contributory factor to my chosen action (which may be just what to say when the topic comes up in the pub, but could in other circumstances be a matter of someone's life or death).
So no, we don't choose our beliefs, we choose what to do about them.
And that choice may be to get further information which may affect our belief.
Some people may conceivably have some sort of emotional need to believe the accused guilty or not. (Perhaps as a response to the fact that the victim was stunningly good-looking). But we don't choose our emotional needs. I'm not putting forward an idealised notion of human rationality. Maybe we're conflicted as anything.
Driven by such emotional need, someone may believe that the evidence is inconclusive enough for them to safely maintain their preferred attitude, and act accordingly.
But to say that they've chosen their belief is inaccurate ISTM.
And it's usually considered good manners to address whatever rationalisation they may put forward rather than attempting to unpick their thought process...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find 'choosing to believe' quite odd also. The old-fashioned examples against it, include stuff like 'Paris is the capital of Germany', and 'I am Napoleon', which are difficult to choose to believe.
But these are factual examples, whereas religious beliefs seem different. But here the traditional counter-examples include choosing to be an atheist for a week, or a theist (if you are an atheist). Maybe some people can do that!
I'm not sure about some stuff, such as believing that Arsenal are a brilliant team.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Rationality and evidence are just as much stories that we tell ourselves as choice is. To call beliefs irrational is meaningless if there's no such thing as rationality.
I wouldn't go that far. Usually rationality and evidence exist within communities. There isn't one rationality or agreement on just what will always count as evidence, but rather shared views in each community. All of us belong to more than one community, a scientist who is a Christian has to decide where, in particular cases, to decide by one view or another (or they may feel there is no conflict).
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
... and much religion is not rational as it is based on assumptions (faith) rather than the irrefutable sequencing of cause and effect.
Scientists devise experiments on the basis of repeatability - they don't factor in a miracle-variable and they don't assume that the results they get are merely a story.
As Hume pointed out long ago, they believe that because B, in their experience, has always followed A it will continue to do so. Why do they believe that? Because in the past it has always been that way - an obviously circular argument. The faith of the scientist lies in the repeatability of experience and the possibility that anything worth knowing can be quantified. That is an assumption.
But that has to be endlessly redefined as knowledge grows: getting heads ten times in a row is as likely as any other individual outcome but I don't therefore assume that I'll get a head the next time (or that I won't). How and when induction can be applied is a very complex business - it's never irrefutable which is why we get lots of different results on what to do to keep healthy.
Frequently science has got things radically wrong, as have religions, and both have learnt from their mistakes - though it can take hundreds of years. How long was it before scientists accepted that black people were as intelligent as white, women as able as men? And ditto religions.
Though I was, for a while, a scientist I didn't see it as a substitute for God. It's a fallible human activity (like religion) which does its best. The important thing is remaining open to the possibility that you are wrong. Scientific evidence is rarely black and white, at most a best guess approximation to an unknown reality. Like religion I'd say.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that using the term 'belief' in relation to science is quite odd. No doubt there are certain assumptions found in science as a kind of foundation, but it primarily provides a method of observation and description and theorization, about those observations. Thus, it is not a quest for truth or reality. In fact, science made a major breakthrough several centuries ago, by separating itself off from such philosophical enquiry - see Bacon, for example.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We choose to believe that God heals when He patently doesn't. Why do we do that? It's because our belief in Him is dependent on Him proving Himself to us with signs and wonders. Which makes us ... adulterers.
We choose to believe universal dogmas based on a highly contextualized word or two that do injury to our ethics and thus to our hearts because it's easier than working stuff out.
It takes Divine intervention to begin to see this.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
