Belief

[XaviarRkR]

I've been thinking a lot about belief (any kind). Specifically, why do some of us (myself included at times) refuse to stop believing in a concept or idea, even when there is irrefutable proof laid out in front of us? I am thinking largley from the point of view of "theory". It takes a lot to change my mind about something, yet some people can just read up on a different idea and discard their old belief in an instant, and can do this several times over.

I am curious about perspectives on belief and what it means to us as a concept, rather than any specific type (scientific, religious or political).

 

[Ignatz]

For one thing, irrefutable proof is hard to come by. Take the most elaborate, closely reasoned theory you can find, a treatise by Kant for example, and you can find countless elaborate closely reasoned treatises "proving" it erroneous. At some point, you have to throw up your hands and trust your own reasoning and instincts about anything that really matters. Unfortunately, this can lead to stubborn wishful thinking on issues that one might care passionately about, like the murder of JFK or the "innocence" of O.J. Simpson.
Some people cling to exploded ideas and concepts out of loyalty to whoever taught them. ("Don't try to tell me them people is just like you and me. Mah daddy taught me better'n that. You ain't saying nothing against mah daddy, are you?")
Furthermore, if you have gone to bat for an idea, it is deeply humiliating to have to admit it might be wrong or flawed. Rather than have to apologize and atone for years of error, many of us prefer to bull ahead with what we've always stood for. ("That's my story and I'm sticking to it.")
This is what Emerson was deploring when he wrote that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

It's very seldom we get to talk to somebody who hasn't already made up their mind...

 

[XaviarRkR]

That's very true.

 

[blackmagicjack1]

Let's see if I can keep this short and fairly free of bias.

Most humans beings are creatures of habit and comfort. We stick to outmoded ideas because that is what we are familiar with, which means comfortable. We "know" that way of thinking doesn't work anymore but it is easier than coming up with a new way of thinking and integrating it into our mindset. Now if an idea actually works for "you" then why give it up.

 

[Cbarton]

What I stand by is right out of Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain fo what we do not see"

To me, faith and belief go hand in hand. If you dump what you 'believe' just because of what one man/woman says, then that belief must not have been held very true by that person. I may be openminded enough to listen to another's viewpoint, but if I turn my back on what I believe just to be "openminded" or "tolerant" (that ugly PC term), then, to me, that violates all I believe in. For if I so readily drop one, how soon before I drop another...and another...

Like Pilate asked of Christ: "What is truth?" I like Frank Peretti (author of This Present Darkeness and many otehr great books) says in reply: "Truth isn't true becasue you believe in it. Truth is what's true whether you believe it or not!"

(and no, not trying to make it a 'religion' discussion...this is just the window I see the topic through...ACLU does not need to be mobilized....😉 )

 

[jj82277]

This is an interesting question, because the one irrefutable fact that we know of on this planet is that the greatest gift to man is the ablility to believe beyond what he absolutely knows. wihtout it we would not be able to achieve any of the goals that we set for ourselves and had not reached, or commit ourselves fully to another person wihtout any true irrefutable proof of their intentions. Most people who write books on success spend about 90% of the time letting people know that human belief ids a tol, that can be used, and how to use it.

is that in the instances of Belief or faith thee is generally an absence of apperant knowledge (in the case of religion) so i have to agree with ig, that there are little times when you can find irrefutable evidene for anything (the book says all those that have faith in me and blessed are they that have not seen yet still believe, not by a preponderance of the evidence.), but in the areas of science and politics its more or less the extrapolations that a certain person makes off a given set of data into the unknown. and nine times out of ten, when data comes in to disprove these tangiable belief systems, then a little thing called pride of authorship kicks in. it has been documented that te human belief system is like the programing of a computer. and the subconcious mind has the responsibility of prooving our belief systems to be right to our concious mind so that we don't go insane.

give you an example. I live in Jacksonville. the entire city is convinced that we should not have drafted Byron Leftwich. That is a core belief that they have developed. and there were logical reasons for it. slow release. imobile, and below average footwork in the pocket. but when he became the 9th rated QB in the league, then the world presented them with information contrary to their core beliefs, so their subconcious mind has to step in and proove their origional beliefs correct. so in their mind they disreguard his production arm strength accuracy and decision making, and keep repeating on radio shows, the negatives that they heard on draft day of why we shouldnt have drafted him even in the face of in this case what could be considered irrefutable evidence. to make things worse, we have a very young group of recievers. and we probably had one of the highest drop ratios in the NFL. the fans that have the aforementioned belief system assert that Byron "throws the ball too hard" to explain why the recievers aren't catching the ball. I always used this definition for Dillusional-when the subconcious mind, uses competely ilogical, and incomprehensable arguments to deliver proof of an equally ilogical, and incorrect core belief system.

the thing that makes certain people change their beliefs mor frequently than others is how aware people are of their core beliefs, and which ones they hold closest, and a costant logical re-evaluation, and openess to new ideas. I am just etting through a radical change in all three phases of belief that you cited because i was presented with the utter implausability of my former core belief system (evolution, and egnosticism) because i personally wsas open to looking at the facts and my concious mind was acting in control of my belief system, which in turn controls your subconcious thought process. all those that seem not to be able to make logicall adjustments in any belief system have that system working out of order, their core belief system (that often times is given to them by someone else ususally parents) continues to program their subconcious, and their concious mind is a willing slave to their beliefs, and are generally unable to manage either of these areas.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

well the hollywood brother has his own view and that is that people need something to believe. this is the bottom hollywood brother line. even if it foolish or crazy people have to have faith and believe. Look at the hollywood brother for example. The hollywood brother is not fabio in the looks deparmtent. The hollywood brother is not a skilled pick up artist like a player and the hollywood brother will never be rich. however with all this hollywood brother knowledge that the hollywood brother just laid on you, the hollywood brother never ever gives up on finding true love. It is something that the hollywood brother believes in and will never ever give up on. it is what keeps the hollywood brother going

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Reminds of of an article just recently posted to Fark, this discussion does. It talked about how political thoughts can be irrational (ie the opinions and the forming thereof by those with strong beliefs either left or right can be skewed by emotion). It can easily be extended to apply to any situation where one believes strongly about one position or another. Interesting read, it is. >>>http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/NEWS06/601290427/1012/NEWS06

An open mind is the key, although we already knew that...

*Wanders off*

 

[kut2k2]

I've been thinking a lot about belief (any kind). Specifically, why do some of us (myself included at times) refuse to stop believing in a concept or idea, even when there is irrefutable proof laid out in front of us? I am thinking largley from the point of view of "theory". It takes a lot to change my mind about something, yet some people can just read up on a different idea and discard their old belief in an instant, and can do this several times over.

I am curious about perspectives on belief and what it means to us as a concept, rather than any specific type (scientific, religious or political).

It comes down to comfort for many. Once they absorb a set of beliefs that give them some comfort, they are very resistant to evidence to the contrary. And for many people, some who belong in the first group, some who don't, critical analysis is not their strong suit. It's easy to reject objective analysis if one is taught to believe that all opinions are equally valid (they aren't) and all facts are subject to revision (some are, some aren't).

And of course, nuance is a factor. You have the fortune to live in the UK, where the leader isn't a buffoon who sneers at nuanced thought as if it was unpatriotic.

I think there is a difference between faith (trust in, say, your parents, based on some evidence ) and blind faith (trust based on zero evidence, which describes most religions). The latter requires indoctrination and more than a little wishful thinking. In the end, one has to decide how important being reality-based is to one's life.

What's reality, you might ask? I like Phillip K. Dick's answer:

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away."

 

[XaviarRkR]

For me, cosmology is my belief, the need to explain the very way of existence(s?) (the universe and beyond) in terms that can be either measured or mathematically theorised (not that I am a physicist or a mathematician - maths is beyond my understanding!). My fave of the latest was M theory, in which all of the 5 String theories were found to be the same one by sticking it all in an 11 D spacetime (that I first heard about in roughly 98/99).

M-Theory is massive and interesting, and I have to confess that if a TOE emerges that makes the universe inflexible and uninterestingly singular again, I will be very dissapointed.

 

[jj82277]

kut2k2

i would ask what you consider evidence and what you don't consider evidence.

if you are speaking only in the existance of ones parents then yes, you have some evidentiary support, but the relationship that you have with your parents you have very limited evidence, since they are human beings, they have the capacity to act outside base patterns, like parents killing or abusing their children.

and in the case of religion, there are very few religious doctrine based on what you term zero faith, the most prominent were based on people that did exist, and in most cases based on eyewhitness testimony, how could you consider this no evidence,

I have the position that there is no blind-faith, or calculated faith, just faith.

As you quote indicates, that truly to a human being the entire world that they know is a system of perceptions that they have recognized since birth and that reality is all things that are in that world that are not dependant simply on that persons peliefs to remain in existance. I view faith as the simple unique ability of a finite being (being without the ability to comprehend the infiniteness of totall truth to create a relaity truly of his or her own choosing while remaining some symblance of sanity.

 

[kut2k2]

kut2k2

i would ask what you consider evidence and what you don't consider evidence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence&db=*

if you are speaking only in the existance of ones parents then yes, you have some evidentiary support, but the relationship that you have with your parents you have very limited evidence, since they are human beings, they have the capacity to act outside base patterns, like parents killing or abusing their children.

I was just giving an example. Obviously a lot of people (thankfully not most) have found out through hard experience that they can't trust one or both parents. My point was that trust can be evidence-based or just wishful-thinking-based. As George Orwell's novel 1984 pointed out, almost anyone can be forced to betray a trust under sufficient duress. But there are also many who thrive on betraying trusts. To trust in those sociopathic persons or institutions is blind faith.

and in the case of religion, there are very few religious doctrine based on what you term zero faith, the most prominent were based on people that did exist, and in most cases based on eyewhitness testimony, how could you consider this no evidence,

I have the position that there is no blind-faith, or calculated faith, just faith.

I didn't say "zero faith", I said zero evidence. If most religions say "Believe in this one and no other", then most of them must be wrong. I will not get into a discussion as to which is correct. That's a non-starter, and is totally besides the point I was making anyway.

As far as faith versus blind faith, we agree to disagree. Some faith has some evidence to back it up and some faith has no evidence to back it up. It matters which is which IMO. And this isn't restricted to religion; it covers politics and other trust-based affiliations as well.

 

[jj82277]

But there are also many who thrive on betraying trusts. To trust in those sociopathic persons or institutions is blind faith.

if one knew that a person or an institution wa sociopathic, then one would not have faith in it. Faith in of itself is not knowing. just as in the case of the parent. all "evidence" of past behaviosr has no bearing on future behavior, because all human beings on some level exhibit sociopathic behavior. and their has only ever been one person that anyone has ever claimed was not sociopathic, three guses what his name was.

and i meant to type zero evidnece i meant to type zero faith in a rush, my bad, thanks for picking it up for me.

 

[kut2k2]

if one knew that a person or an institution wa sociopathic, then one would not have faith in it.

That goes without saying. Most sociopaths are not open about it. They are "always" acting for some "greater good".

Faith in of itself is not knowing.

That's just one definition of faith. There are others.

just as in the case of the parent. all "evidence" of past behaviosr has no bearing on future behavior, because all human beings on some level exhibit sociopathic behavior.

Unproven assertion.

and their has only ever been one person that anyone has ever claimed was not sociopathic, three guses what his name was.

You seem determined to turn this into a discussion of one particular religion. That violates what the OP asked: "I am curious about perspectives on belief and what it means to us as a concept, rather than any specific type (scientific, religious or political)."

Like I said, I have no intention of getting into an argument over which religion is correct. Why do you need validation of your belief system by converting everyone around you? That strikes me as a sign of a very weak and shaky religion. Always has, always will. If you're right, time will tell. Ditto if you're wrong.

 

[jj82277]

the fact that all human beings at some point will demonstrate some form of sociopathic behavior is a given fact. unless you are perfect at some point you have acted with complete disreguard for the feelings or wel beings of others. but thats just something that i believe to be true, along wiht all my Psych professors.

And i am not determined to turn it into a discussion about one specific religion, you have to understand my persepctivve, to me there is no such thing as religion, there is what i believe and other people.

The determination of my specific faith to try and convert everyone is not a sign of a weak religion, or us needing validation. Look at it this way, if you were on the top of a cliff. and you could see the edge. and there was a group of people that's vision was obstructed and they were walking to the edge of the cliff, and in serious danger of falling off the cliff, would the person trying to save all the people walking off the clif from impending doom be doing it out of validation of his vision, or because he cared about the people not falling to their deaths.

 

[Cbarton]

Look at it this way, if you were on the top of a cliff. and you could see the edge. and there was a group of people that's vision was obstructed and they were walking to the edge of the cliff, and in serious danger of falling off the cliff, would the person trying to save all the people walking off the clif from impending doom be doing it out of validation of his vision, or because he cared about the people not falling to their deaths.

From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint on faith/belief I follow, the answer is BOTH. He would not want them to die (to carry the metaphor spiritually, the final judgement and condemnation) and 'saving them' validates the vision (faith in the resurrection of Christ and His attoning death). It's not an either/or scenario.

 

[jj82277]

i like you kyhawkeye, you're okay

 

[Betchass1]

I've been thinking a lot about belief (any kind). Specifically, why do some of us (myself included at times) refuse to stop believing in a concept or idea, even when there is irrefutable proof laid out in front of us? I am thinking largley from the point of view of "theory". It takes a lot to change my mind about something, yet some people can just read up on a different idea and discard their old belief in an instant, and can do this several times over.

I am curious about perspectives on belief and what it means to us as a concept, rather than any specific type (scientific, religious or political).

A brain is really under no obligation to understand or know reality. Its job is to further the survival of the animal it's part of.

 

[jj82277]

that would be true of every other species on this planet other than human beings. human beings have been burdened with this little thing called conciousness which is the undying starvation for further knowledge and understanding of origions and meanings.

 

[Ignatz]

A brain is really under no obligation to understand or know reality. Its job is to further the survival of the animal it's part of.

Astonishing, isn't it, how evolution has given Man so much more brain power than he needs to simply survive. Where is the survival value in the Pieta of Michelangelo, the Mass in B Minor of Bach, or in "King Lear?"

 

[Betchass1]

Astonishing, isn't it, how evolution has given Man so much more brain power than he needs to simply survive. Where is the survival value in the Pieta of Michelangelo, the Mass in B Minor of Bach, or in "King Lear?"

Well, those guys are all dead 🙂 Actually it was in the interest of at least the first two to do what they did, given the societies they lived in.
I don't think of Man as the be-all end-all of evolution. Well maybe the end-all. I'm not saying there will be more evolution, I'm saying we could very well die off within a thousand years and therefore be a failed branch. Mankind is not necessarily a measuring stick for what is useful for survival. We've got lots of really handy traits, but we've got our share of psychotics.

 

[Betchass1]

that would be true of every other species on this planet other than human beings. human beings have been burdened with this little thing called conciousness which is the undying starvation for further knowledge and understanding of origions and meanings.

Slight exaggeration there in the case of most people. Lots of folks are quite satisfied with what they think they know. To the point of putting people to death for heresy. That thirst for "knowledge" is often as easily satisfied with fairy tales and superstitions.

 

[Betchass1]

I've been thinking a lot about belief (any kind). Specifically, why do some of us (myself included at times) refuse to stop believing in a concept or idea, even when there is irrefutable proof laid out in front of us? I am thinking largley from the point of view of "theory". It takes a lot to change my mind about something, yet some people can just read up on a different idea and discard their old belief in an instant, and can do this several times over.

I am curious about perspectives on belief and what it means to us as a concept, rather than any specific type (scientific, religious or political).

There is a lot to the way the brain works. Nerve cells use up more oxygen than most other cells- because they are always active. Which nerve cell becomes triggered by a series of others depends on several things, and it can be a different path each time. It takes several stimulations, on several dendrites simultaneously or one one repeatedly, to actually trigger one neuron. In terms of firing, a neuron is on or off, there is no strong/weak scale, but it must reach a certain level of electrical imbalance to trigger.

Repression is one aspect of human psychology about which Freud was dead-on. Of course, there is no particular "part of the brain" that is "The Unconscious", but lots of the processes that take place are unconscious- in that you don't recall them. Unconscious should be used as an adjective, not a noun. Anyway, when something happens that would normally remind you of some past event, if that event was particularly unpleasant, you will find other things to think about, other things to be reminded of, that often imitate the traumatic experience enough to replace it, but without confronting the fear caused by the memory.
After this substitution is made enough times, whatever pathway is associated with it will become stronger than the original, so it will be triggered more easily.

Meet the fetish.

Check out this guy's perspective:
http://www.sidis.net/Unconscious Intelligence.htm

Supposedly the most intelligent person ever. He refers to situations, which I've also experienced, where a random memory pops up in the consciousness. But if you retrace your steps, sometimes it was not random, and you find the associations that led to it *were actually conscious* when you thought through them.

Another important part of the question is what Freud called "preconscious". The name of your first pet was in your preconscious awareness until you read this, now it's conscious. It refers to stuff that is not inaccessible, but also not on your mind. I think this factors into people clinging to beliefs or believing two contradictory things. You just aren't thinking about one of those beliefs when you're thinking about the other.

Lots of people, for instance, talk about how selfish and oblivious the opposite sex is, while members of that sex who aren't like that are all around them, even their best friends. If the contradiction is pointed out, they will say "Well not you," but the belief remains unaffected.

I think stuff like this is common enough to indicate the purpose of understanding isn't to perfect itself, but to guide the decision-making process.

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

The only thing that is certain is death; everything else is open to interpretation...

Also, whether something is true or not depends on what set of axioms you view the universe with (I studied Logic at uni). If you look at the world in the usual way, then 6x9=54. But if you look at it a different way, 6x9 actually equals 42 (base 13). But to one person who believes in the first case, the second is wrong, and vice versa.

Then of course, there is the fact that most people are quite illogical (and irrational) for a lot of the time. Trying to apply rational logic to irrational/illogical belief systems is fruitless at best. At worst, it might drive you loopy. 😛