Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Examples of this would be people who believe President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, and people who deny evolution. Although we may be tempted to look down our noses at such people, we need to remember that it is quite normal for most of us to be in denial about somethings. For instance, most of us believe people think a little more of us than they actually do, and people who have been treated poorly throughout their life may falsely believe that they are worthless. And it is normal, upon hearing horrible news, such as the death of a loved one to be in denial for a little while. That is a coping mechanism so that we are not completely overwhelmed emotionally with the news. When it comes right down to it, I think that a major reason why people refuse to believe things that are clearly evidenced is because we might not be able to emotionally handle believing the truth.
But, then there are the situations in which we are compelled to believe, in which we believe what we must. In such circumstances we feel as though we have no choice but to believe (or not believe) what we do. It does not seem like it would be possible for us to believe differently than we do no matter how bad we might want to. But, in order for that to happen, we have to have a desire to not deceive ourselves in that thing. We call that intellectual integrity or honesty. We don't avoid info that might make us uncomfortable, in fact, we seek out such info. We have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it may lead us. And we are open enough to not think that we already know all about something.
Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Examples of this would be people who believe President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, and people who deny evolution. Although we may be tempted to look down our noses at such people, we need to remember that it is quite normal for most of us to be in denial about somethings. For instance, most of us believe people think a little more of us than they actually do, and people who have been treated poorly throughout their life may falsely believe that they are worthless. And it is normal, upon hearing horrible news, such as the death of a loved one to be in denial for a little while. That is a coping mechanism so that we are not completely overwhelmed emotionally with the news. When it comes right down to it, I think that a major reason why people refuse to believe things that are clearly evidenced is because we might not be able to emotionally handle believing the truth.
But, then there are the situations in which we are compelled to believe, in which we believe what we must. In such circumstances we feel as though we have no choice but to believe (or not believe) what we do. It does not seem like it would be possible for us to believe differently than we do no matter how bad we might want to. But, in order for that to happen, we have to have a desire to not deceive ourselves in that thing. We call that intellectual integrity or honesty. We don't avoid info that might make us uncomfortable, in fact, we seek out such info. We have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it may lead us. And we are open enough to not think that we already know all about something.
Your thoughts?
Sounds a little bit like the process of "tearing down the 10,000 walls" - that process of self-illumination that attempts to rid itself of the comfortable walls we have psychically erected around us to make life more emotionally stable. As scary as such a demolition project sounds, it's well worth the effort, I think - if one wishes to live an honest and aware life.
While I don't normally believe this maxim, I think it might be appropriate in this case: "No pain, no gain".
I believe that is a reasonably summation of how many, perhaps most, people believe. Many will follow the first pararaph, a few may be brave enough to follow the second.
Sadly there is a third option, very similar to the second option, I say sadly because it seems to be ignored or unknown. That being:
To believe through seeking and questioning. To not accept any belief as true unless the seeker has found sufficient evidence to accept the belief as a fact. This takes work and a desire to accept truth even when it not what one likes. It also takes a self awareness of what one accepts as self evident beliefs and the ability to even question those. It comes not from a desire to be different, but from a desire to find truth even at the price of pain,
I believe that is a reasonably summation of how many, perhaps most, people believe. Many will follow the first pararaph, a few may be brave enough to follow the second.
Sadly there is a third option, very similar to the second option, I say sadly because it seems to be ignored or unknown. That being:
To believe through seeking and questioning. To not accept any belief as true unless the seeker has found sufficient evidence to accept the belief as a fact. This takes work and a desire to accept truth even when it not what one likes. It also takes a self awareness of what one accepts as self evident beliefs and the ability to even question those. It comes not from a desire to be different, but from a desire to find truth even at the price of pain,
I think your description of the third option is what I was attempting to describe as my second. Perhaps, I wasn't clear enough in my description. Or, perhaps you see something I do not. What do you see as the difference between the second and third? When I said "compelled to believe" and "believe what we must", I meant compelled by the evidence and "must" because that is what the evidence demands.
Pretty much everything that goes through the human mind is a belief.
It's just that some beliefs seem to hold true for more people more often, while others only seem work while under the influence of drugs, alcohol or a hypnotic preacher.
I think your description of the third option is what I was attempting to describe as my second. Perhaps, I wasn't clear enough in my description. Or, perhaps you see something I do not. What do you see as the difference between the second and third? When I said "compelled to believe" and "believe what we must", I meant compelled by the evidence and "must" because that is what the evidence demands.
The only difference was the addition of needing to verify what we consider to be self evident beliefs. Perhaps you intended for that to be in there.
I felt they are a subtle difference to what we know we believe. Self evident beliefs are unknown to even ourselves until they are challenged. They are often a source of arguments as we do not realize they do need verification.
Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Examples of this would be people who believe President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, and people who deny evolution. Although we may be tempted to look down our noses at such people, we need to remember that it is quite normal for most of us to be in denial about somethings. For instance, most of us believe people think a little more of us than they actually do, and people who have been treated poorly throughout their life may falsely believe that they are worthless. And it is normal, upon hearing horrible news, such as the death of a loved one to be in denial for a little while. That is a coping mechanism so that we are not completely overwhelmed emotionally with the news. When it comes right down to it, I think that a major reason why people refuse to believe things that are clearly evidenced is because we might not be able to emotionally handle believing the truth.
But, then there are the situations in which we are compelled to believe, in which we believe what we must. In such circumstances we feel as though we have no choice but to believe (or not believe) what we do. It does not seem like it would be possible for us to believe differently than we do no matter how bad we might want to. But, in order for that to happen, we have to have a desire to not deceive ourselves in that thing. We call that intellectual integrity or honesty. We don't avoid info that might make us uncomfortable, in fact, we seek out such info. We have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it may lead us. And we are open enough to not think that we already know all about something.
Your thoughts?
Your talkibg about being powerless before the sense data, but as Satan said: the mind is a powerful thing. it chooses which data to remember and how to interpret it. but you are right, they (if sane) must at least curve their believes to fit presented sense data.
you are also talking about human nature, and people are different, intellectual curiosity is what killed the cat in many peoples views on the practice of skepticism. I know plenty of people that would go out of their way to avoid uncomfortable information, and not just in the realm of philosophy or theology. the basic desire is not to "hurt" the self. a deception that "works" works, so the corrupt money-hungry religions pretend and lie about human nature to degradate it and make people have faith in faith.
Obviously a thinly veiled denouement of religion or belief in god under the theory rational thought is supreme, and unquestionable.
Tell me how you would handle this situation.
A woman has a baby. The infant is badly formed, and will never be "Normal". It can live a standard life span, but will need 24 hour care for its entire life.
Now the rational thing would be to destroy the poor thing, as it has no economic value and will only consume resouces, never produce them. The child will be a burden on society, and it's parents, for as long as it lives.
But the mother loves the child anyway, and wants to keep it. It doesn't make rational sense, maybe, but it's how she feels.
Would you argue that she doesn't really love the child, as that is just a darwinian mechanism for helping the species survive. Love is just neurons or chemical reactions in the brain, and is a not a reliable instrument for decision making. Therefore the mother should be strongly "encouraged" to terminate the baby's life, as there is no chance of it having a "good" life. Besides, it has no soul, and doing so is no different than putting out a light that consumes way more energy than it produces.
This would be the rational, and therefore superior, way to handle this situation, right?
No, what if the babies deformity makes it smarter or more creative. the rational thing to do is not to punish the mother for loving a child, but to ask her why she would bring such a creature to suffer in the first place. obviously deformed people can life happy lives, and that's good enough. you have really grave misunderstanding likely enforced by religionist propaganda at the implications of science.
re: "Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence."
Is there any implication in that comment that you think that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?
re: "Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence."
Is there any implication in that comment that you think that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?
Sometimes we can choose and sometimes we can't. That is exactly what the title of this thread is getting at. Some people can will themselves to believe something, sometimes by discounting, ignoring, or denying evidence, sometimes by stopping themselves from thinking about it if a doubt starts to rise. And then there are other cases in which the evidence is ambiguous or non-existent, so several possibilities remain, the person then can choose to believe one of the possibilities.
I think faith is willing yourself to believe. It is easier to do if a person is unaware of evidence that could challenge the validity of whatever the person is putting faith in. Faith is choosing to interpret one's experiences and any evidence out there in a way that is favorable toward the possibility of whatever one is choosing to believe; spinning it.
However, there are things that we can't choose to believe. I can't choose to believe that I am a parrot. I can acknowledge the possibility that I am a parrot and all of this is just a dream, but I can't will myself to actually believe it no matter how hard I might try. My ability to deny evidence only goes so far. I think that is a trait people differ on: the ability to deny evidence, and I think education can reduce that ability. I think the more informed a person becomes about how evidence is gathered and substantiated and how the mind can be fooled, the more a person loses the ability to deny evidence. That would be an interesting experiment to see if that is true if no one has done it before. I think losing the ability to deny evidence is a good thing. But, with that I think one must also learn the limits of what can be implied from the evidence and learn to keep open the other possible interpretations of the evidence that still exist. If we are not careful, we can jump to conclusions and think evidence proves something that it does not.
Mathematicians say "proof", scientists rarely ever, if ever say "proof". Why? Because as they gather evidence all they can say is that the evidence supports a theory or hypothesis. But, they always allow for the possibility that another alternative theory may come along that is also supported by the same evidence and may better account for somethings the original theory could not. So, we don't ever really prove a theory, but we can gather more and more support for a theory.
If we are intellectually honest with ourselves, that is how we should approach our beliefs as well. We should be critical of claims of evidence until we can substantiate them, but once we have substantiated them we should not willfully ignore or deny them, but strive to incorporate them into our beliefs. And we must be mindful that even if the evidence is true, a lot of possibilities remain as to what that evidence might imply about the nature of reality. When possibilities remain, we often make an educated guess about the likelihood of each of those possibilities being correct, and believe whatever we think is most likely to be true. But, we must remember that our guesses about probability might be incorrect. If the probabilities of being true is close between the various options, we are free to choose which of those possibilities to believe, or to hold off believing any possibility until more evidence is available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
