Beliefs... everyone has them

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Based on what though?  That people disagree and are better at stating the specifics why they disagree than the proponent is for why they believe?  Why is it okay to entertain a belief but not entertain other beliefs that counter it?  Who gets to approve which beliefs must be treated with these special rules?  Let's face it, 'believers' are no more kind and delicate 'around here' when criticizing science and the 'scientism' they think they see and the narrowness of 'materialism', etc.  What is different is that people who do champion something like science here don't act like it's been blasphemed when criticized and questioned.  

Why the double standards?  In my view because people on average have stronger emotional attachments to their spiritual beliefs than people on average do for scientific findings.  Nothing really wrong with that, not even sure it's voluntary, but what is totally voluntary is posting their beliefs on a forum with 'vs' in the title; they probably shouldn't do that if they can't take criticism or the idea that their claims won't be treated any differently than any other claim.

[Jodie.Lynne]

I am finding it extremely interesting that some folk are very concentrated on the religious definition of 'belief' here.

As I hinted at in my opening post, there are people who believe that men are "better" than women ( or vice versa ), that whites are better than POC , that there is a "New World Order" threatening their lives, that the Earth is hollow, or flat, or both; that 'reptilians' are running governments, or that aliens built ancient megalithic structures.

"Belief" is NOT restricted to ideas of god, or gods.

[psyche101]

Some will always choose belief no matter what. One can provide solid evidence only to be met with inane unfounded BS like 'science changes every other day' or 'theres things beyond science' and the old classic 'you can't explain my experience'

Meh.

I don't know why people can't be more honest and just say they reject reality because they prefer to give imagination the benefit of the doubt. 

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I am finding it extremely interesting that some folk are very concentrated on the religious definition of 'belief' here.

As I hinted at in my opening post, there are people who believe that men are "better" than women ( or vice versa ), that whites are better than POC , that there is a "New World Order" threatening their lives, that the Earth is hollow, or flat, or both; that 'reptilians' are running governments, or that aliens built ancient megalithic structures.

"Belief" is NOT restricted to ideas of god, or gods.

The reaction to the current election is pretty much the same vein. 

As with the CTs promoted here. 

There's belief and then there's belief. Some is warranted and some not. I don't think one could compare a personal belief about an unknown with Beliefs in knowns, like the belief that you car will start because you service it regularly. 

And then there's opinion. That's where I would more categorise the examples in your post. Is opinion actually belief? I think one can grow into the other regardless of the subject.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And then there's opinion. That's where I would more categorise the examples in your post. Is opinion actually belief? I think one can grow into the other regardless of the subject.

Not necessarily true.

If a person grows up in a racist household, being taught to hate those who look different because "we're better than them", is that an opinion, or a belief?

[+Hammerclaw]

46 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Not necessarily true.

If a person grows up in a racist household, being taught to hate those who look different because "we're better than them", is that an opinion, or a belief?

Misinformation. factual indoctrinal error.

[psyche101]

55 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Not necessarily true.

If a person grows up in a racist household, being taught to hate those who look different because "we're better than them", is that an opinion, or a belief?

I think that's still opinion growing into belief. I grew up when it was encouraged to be homophobic. When I got older I saw that belief was just an exaggerated opinion forced into others and I rejected it. 

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Thing change and sometimes people do as well. 

Yep.

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Any debate needs to be weighed from "does this produce a negative outcome" position. 

I "discuss" subjects, imnsho forum debates are a waste of time any discussion can produce any outcome all depends on that persons perspective.

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

It depends on the person and what they're preaching. You have on one side the adamant dis-believer and on the other side the adamant believer, in the middle are those who can discuss. The other two just argue. 

Pretty much the case, i place myself in the middle but true believers will call me an adamant dis believer "skeptic" for nothing more that not believing their stories and claims at face value, so be it.

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

New reality tunnel. One that I enjoy and the results of which leave me free from depression. You got a problem with that? I weigh things out a lot more recently and make a choice to either partake or not. Most of the discussion on here are really not worth my time effort and energy. 

Nothing to be defensive about you know i have no problem with you or anyone who believes they have special magical powers, i respect they believe it but without proof its just stories to me, and many do have a problem with that.

You may feel that way but still you post a lot.

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

You know full well that you'll never get satisfactory proof. Same goes for me, so why ask for something that never happens. When it does it's often half *****.

That might be true for you but not for me, there are many stories and claims on here that would be super easy to prove to me.

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

So nothing has changed. 

Not really no, but i still find entertainment value here, i dont take it personal like many do.

 

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

How often do we get a claim of "I saw a ghost", then almost instantly see someone demand a video. If a video is proved then that is easier to discuss. When someone states they believe in ghost, do we really ask them why? Why they believe? Seems the normal thing around here is to basically stomp that belief into the ground. I know, I was very good at it. Look, I'll be very clear. Bad advice is bad advice, feeding people's delusion is bad advice. 

I have my own collection of paranormal experiences and events that I will never talk about opening. Very few know of them. I have my own beliefs too, some of which are not "approved" by the forum and 13bats, it's due to the same mocking tone you used is why myself and I suspect others quit talking. 

 

A lot of people have experences that they cant explain some try harder than others to find explanations some are good with jumping to "i dont know so it must be paranormal" im not one of those, the hand waving about your alleged experences and things you assume are unapproved but won't share is for what attention? If you arent going to present it for discussion then no reason to bring it up at all,

My mocking tone? Look in the mirror, you have been rather vicious to people on here and no doubt chased away far more than i have,

I have no idea how i make "tone" in type but there are a lot of believers on here that lack of proof or what skeptics posts doesnt effect them at all they keep right on talking.

Look at papageorge for example he doesnt care what anyone says to him he stands firm on what he believes, a person has to be comfortable in their beliefs to be like that.

Dont blame others if you question yourself and your experences.

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think that's still opinion growing into belief. I grew up when it was encouraged to be homophobic. When I got older I saw that belief was just an exaggerated opinion forced into others and I rejected it. 

Well done for you!

 

But when children are taught 'beliefs-as-facts', in whatever area whether religion, race, politics, etc., and DON'T have access to other viewpoints, it's very difficult to evaluate what one has been taught.

Personal note: My Mum & Dad were born and raised in England & Ireland, and I highly doubt that they ever even saw a POC until they came to America.  I won't say that they were racist, but they were definitely prejudiced regarding "race".  Luckily for me, they settled in NYC, and I grew up surrounded by people of different ethnic backgrounds and colours.  Where they saw the 'unknown', I saw only people.  I rejected my parents fears & prejudices, because I was familiar with that which they feared.

Had I grown up in an all white community, I might not have strayed far from the path of 'what is true'.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

"Belief" is NOT restricted to ideas of god, or gods.

I think then that I would call 'belief' a valid path to the truth then, as asked in your OP.  I have trouble with it a little bit as depending on what one means it has a lot of different directions.  For example I disagree with your first line, I don't think usually that belief and fact are two totally different animals if you don't mean 'belief' as restricted to gods.  I see belief and facts on a spectrum, with the beliefs that we are most confident about being facts.  Since a belief is definitely an internal thing, does a fact require more objective proof, or just internal certainty?  I agree with your OP that gravity is not something I believe in, but I think it's reasonable to say that I believe in the theory of evolution.  I believe it is a fact, I think calling it a fact is entirely consistent with other things most call facts, but there's a deniability to it that the sane just can't do with something as constant and immediate as gravity - there's no corresponding statement for gravity similar to 'there are estimated to be 1000's of undiscovered species and no one has ultimately verified that there are no insects that have no DNA'.  

I understand what you are saying, although you're not restricting yourself to gods the examples you are giving are things that are not well evidenced, at best, as beliefs.  I'll admit I don't know how believing in a flat earth or sexism/racism is a path to the truth (except about yourself for the latter examples).  What about believing that Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK?  I haven't looked at the evidence in a while, but I don't know that we've really 'proven' that there's no way there was no shooter on the grassy knoll for example.  But believing Oswald acted alone does have evidentiary support for it, so is that an example of a belief that is a valid path to the truth?

I think almost all of my 'truths' went then through a belief stage, I gathered more information that firmed up some of those beliefs and thus I ended up agreeing that some of those are also facts.

[psyche101]

31 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Well done for you!

 

But when children are taught 'beliefs-as-facts', in whatever area whether religion, race, politics, etc., and DON'T have access to other viewpoints, it's very difficult to evaluate what one has been taught.

Personal note: My Mum & Dad were born and raised in England & Ireland, and I highly doubt that they ever even saw a POC until they came to America.  I won't say that they were racist, but they were definitely prejudiced regarding "race".  Luckily for me, they settled in NYC, and I grew up surrounded by people of different ethnic backgrounds and colours.  Where they saw the 'unknown', I saw only people.  I rejected my parents fears & prejudices, because I was familiar with that which they feared.

Had I grown up in an all white community, I might not have strayed far from the path of 'what is true'.

 

I'd have to agree. No point in taking blinkers if if your not going to look around. 

Some don't seem to be willing or capable of learning new things, insisting that tradition is the only way. I don't agree. There's always room for improvement.

[Jodie.Lynne]

@Liquid Gardens

 

OK, so lets look at your example then.

FACTS:
JFK was shot in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963

He died from his wounds that very same day.

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the murder of JFK.

Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby at 12:20AM the next morning.

The above are facts, the below are beliefs.

The Mafia killed Kennedy

The CIA killed Kennedy

Oswald was the lone gunman

Jack Ruby was paid to knock off Oswald

 

One can dispute the beliefs about this event, but one cannot dispute the facts, n'est pas?

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@Liquid Gardens

 

OK, so lets look at your example then.

FACTS:
JFK was shot in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963

He died from his wounds that very same day.

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the murder of JFK.

Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby at 12:20AM the next morning.

The above are facts, the below are beliefs.

The Mafia killed Kennedy

The CIA killed Kennedy

Oswald was the lone gunman

Jack Ruby was paid to knock off Oswald

 

One can dispute the beliefs about this event, but one cannot dispute the facts, n'est pas?

Well stated.

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I always see it less blissful for those people who won't let go of a belief when all things around them prove it to be incomplete or just plain wrong, instead they suffer because of the cognitive dissonance that they insist on ignoring.   If they have a belief that is never challenged, maybe it is blissful to hang to that belief.  

And most people don't even try to prove a belief, those that do are not attached to the belief, or find that they have betrayed themselves by the attempt at proof.  In that case it either becomes knowing or they give up that belief.  I think that is why  most don't want to bother proving anything, because most of their beliefs are too nebulous and only supported in their minds and they know it.

There is not necessarily any  cognitive dissonance 

eg my wife believes in creation despite all the scientific evidence for evolution. It doesn't cause her a moments dissonance  She knows the science and theory but says that  BECAUSE god  crated the earth then all the evidence is a part of the creation.

Watching David Attenborough's programmes, she would say something like, " I love the nature shown, but i feel so sorry for him.

He really believes this is all due to evolution, not the beauty of god's design. 

People with absolute faith experience no dissonance at all 

The y can study examine and question, as  much as anyone, but their faith guides and shapes   the questioning 

My wife has NEVER suffered a moment's doubt or dissonance in the 70 plus years since she began going to church.

She just feels sorry for people whom she sees as having been mislead. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, XenoFish said:

All ideas should face criticism. At what point should a belief of any kind be seen as harmless/harmful? When does discussion become preaching? 

 

A belief can be judged objectively when one considers the outcomes if that belief is put into practice 

Some beliefs produce highly constructive results for most people when they are acted upon.   Some beliefs  produce destructive results. Some don't make much difference.

 

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I cannot state with 100% assurance that the majority of people are taught their beliefs, but I think that is the general evolution of belief.

Parents indoctrinate their children in their own faith ( regarding religion ), and the children who accept these beliefs then pass it on to their children, so on down the line. And people of like minded beliefs tend to cluster, so that an echo chamber is created, where everyone shares the same beliefs/values & opinions, to the point where those beliefs/values & opinions become the "normal & correct" ones to have.

In other areas of "belief" the same effect is observed. Whether it is political, racial, cultural, or gender/sexuality, one's thoughts on these matters is most often formed from those around one.   And it is a strong individual who can examine the beliefs they have been taught and reject them if they feel that those beliefs are incorrect, or do not fit their own needs, or do not match their own observations of the world around them.

 

 

 

 

Every individual belief is slightly different but certainly   parents, peers,  society etc help  shape and  influence the overall structure of a belief  

Part  of  the purpose for a belief is a social one, and if you  have beliefs (and this values) very different from those of people   around you, then  life will become difficult (which is why people tend to form like minded groups.

Maybe, once upon a time in a  traditional  homogeneous society, you had to be strong to evolve your own beliefs.

That's not true anymore as our societies  diversify and a multiplicity of beliefs becomes the norm.

Its now the norm for young people to challenge parent's and generational beliefs.   

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I am finding it extremely interesting that some folk are very concentrated on the religious definition of 'belief' here.

As I hinted at in my opening post, there are people who believe that men are "better" than women ( or vice versa ), that whites are better than POC , that there is a "New World Order" threatening their lives, that the Earth is hollow, or flat, or both; that 'reptilians' are running governments, or that aliens built ancient megalithic structures.

"Belief" is NOT restricted to ideas of god, or gods.

absolutely true

Beliefs go to construction of identity and because religious beliefs are often the most powerful, they do most to define how we see ourselves However today there are many powerful beliefs people use to establish their identify and separate  themselves from others   

eg veganism

anti vaxxers 

beliefs about corporal punishment.

beliefs on drug use and legality.

  beliefs on individual liberties vs social responsibilities

beliefs on climate change  /use of fossil fuels  

etc. etc. 

 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Some will always choose belief no matter what. One can provide solid evidence only to be met with inane unfounded BS like 'science changes every other day' or 'theres things beyond science' and the old classic 'you can't explain my experience'

Meh.

I don't know why people can't be more honest and just say they reject reality because they prefer to give imagination the benefit of the doubt. 

Some of us find denial of the spiritual side of humanity to be dishonest.

Some find the denial tha t science is constantly evolving and progressing to be dishonest 

Some find it to be dishonest to claim, "Well,  because i don't feel or experience that, then  it isn't real or true" 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@Liquid Gardens

 

OK, so lets look at your example then.

FACTS:
JFK was shot in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963

He died from his wounds that very same day.

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the murder of JFK.

Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby at 12:20AM the next morning.

The above are facts, the below are beliefs.

The Mafia killed Kennedy

The CIA killed Kennedy

Oswald was the lone gunman

Jack Ruby was paid to knock off Oswald

 

One can dispute the beliefs about this event, but one cannot dispute the facts, n'est pas?

The y are all statements of fact ie the y are all CAPABLE of being proven true or false. 

Most people would accept that the ones you  call facts have been fairly well established (although some would dispute even those ) eg your times and dates are wrong for many people because you don't specify local (Dallas) time  

The rest are disputed facts. The y haven't yet been proven true or false to the point where the y are generally  accepted/totally rejected    Evidence or testimony may yet come to life which proves one or more  of those statements  to be true or false 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I see belief and facts on a spectrum, with the beliefs that we are most confident about being facts. 

That sounds more like a goal more than an established feature of people's beliefs. I agree about the spectrum part, but what ends up at the top confidence levels can be dicey.

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'll admit I don't know how believing in a flat earth or sexism/racism is a path to the truth (except about yourself for the latter examples).

It is a fairly common anecdote that a person will have some strong belief, be moved to research the foundations for it, discover that their original idea was ill-founded, and work on finding a better belief. That sounds like travelling a path to the truth. It is possible, then, even starting from unpromising beginnings. How common it is, I don't know.

There may be more to your Kennedy assassination example than you intended. In one sense of the word belief, there are people with ordinary historical interest in the tragedy who form beliefs about Oswald being part of a conspiracy. Ruby did shoot Oswald... a reasonable person could (IMO) wonder how that came about, and in such timely fashion.

"Maybe the mob killed Kennedy." Well, yes, maybe they did.

But then there's something else that is also called belief that's part of the "believer's" ego, like a keystone in an arch - not just another stone in the structure, but a strategic one, something necessary to holding the whole arch together. (Yes, yes, I've been channeling Uncle Carl again). It's not about evidence or argument or inherent plausibility or consistency with other beliefs or behaviors - it's about holding the personality together and weathering the storms of life intact.

In the Kennedy example, there seem to be some people whose interest in the matter exceeds the "ordinary historical" and whose devotion to some particular scenario goes way beyond appreciating inherent plausibility and any actual evidence

I think that kind of belief is a different critter than "ordinary" belief, even if we use the same word for both, even if both involve some kind of investment in uncertain propositions.

Everybody has ordinary beliefs. Maybe everybody does something to hold the line against the Shadow of our nature, but I don't think that everybody uses devotion to implausible and unevidenced propositions to hold that line.

[jmccr8]

Not sure that I personally have many beliefs, one for sure is that I am self aware other than that I am more inclined to think that I accept that things are the way they are at this time. Everything changes over time including truths because socially we change as a society and as individuals. I have seen examples of being raised in religious/political or racists homes but I would think that it is also  community influence and you know the saying " just because I was raised in a circus doesn't make me a clown" we make choices.

jmccr8

Edited December 2, 2020 by jmccr8

[+Desertrat56]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There is not necessarily any  cognitive dissonance 

eg my wife believes in creation despite all the scientific evidence for evolution. It doesn't cause her a moments dissonance  She knows the science and theory but says that  BECAUSE god  crated the earth then all the evidence is a part of the creation.

Watching David Attenborough's programmes, she would say something like, " I love the nature shown, but i feel so sorry for him.

He really believes this is all due to evolution, not the beauty of god's design. 

People with absolute faith experience no dissonance at all 

The y can study examine and question, as  much as anyone, but their faith guides and shapes   the questioning 

My wife has NEVER suffered a moment's doubt or dissonance in the 70 plus years since she began going to church.

She just feels sorry for people whom she sees as having been mislead. 

 

 

Ah but you do experience cognitive dissonance, and you ignore it, deny it etc.  Based on the amount of words you use and how often you try to justify and argue with people you do experience cognitive dissonance.  Your wife found her comfortable mental spot, but I don't think you have.  If you go too far into any polarized view no matter which end of the spectrum there will be cognitive dissonance. There are people who can reconcile some religious doctrine to the way the world around them is and it is usually by choosing love and acceptance rather than fear.  Church has more to offer than religion.  But that last sentence belies your whole explanation of how your wife does not experience cognitive dissonance.  If she feels sorry for people who have been misled she is in judgement, not acceptance and judgement is a form of fear.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Desertrat56

[papageorge1]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:16 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

One is based on one's personal desires and wishful thinking; and the other is based in reality.

 

I am going to disagree that beliefs are necessarily based on 'one's personal desires and wishful thinking'. 

Beliefs can be based on the best objective  rational assessment with all things considered. This is just standard human reasoning skills used for things which cannot be proved nor disproved.

For example, I believe in the existence of the paranormal from my best rational assessment with all things considered

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

That sounds more like a goal more than an established feature of people's beliefs. I agree about the spectrum part, but what ends up at the top confidence levels can be dicey.

Agreed, but it again depends entirely on whose perspective we are choosing.  It's tough not to be ambiguous and I probably didn't phrase that well, I guess I'd revise it as "the beliefs that I'm most confident about I label 'facts' ".  All of @Jodie.Lynne 's JFK 'facts' I agree are and also call facts yet we just saw on the other board (ah, so nice to be back on SvS where I can speak freely) Davros bringing up not calling something 'true' / 'proven' because we haven't examined every particle in the universe and all potential dimensions/realms, and likewise all the JFK facts ignore the possibilities of impostors (a possibility to be clear I think is extremely remote).  I agree that what ends up at the top confidence levels for a specific person can be dicey, but that doesn't change in my view that beliefs and facts are not totally different animals in general, and when including in our set of 'beliefs' things like religious belief that involve a supra-reality, partly comes down to where one personally draws the line as to when something merits the label 'fact'.

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

It is a fairly common anecdote that a person will have some strong belief, be moved to research the foundations for it, discover that their original idea was ill-founded, and work on finding a better belief. That sounds like travelling a path to the truth. It is possible, then, even starting from unpromising beginnings. How common it is, I don't know.

Agreed.  Although it's not as common it's not unheard of (and I've had it happen) where I've had 'truths' just occur to me while I'm taking a shower out of nowhere.  It's obviously not as closely related to belief formation processes and for me has been more along the lines of problem-solving rather than ascertaining truths.  To that extent though day- and night-dreaming, exercising, meditating, watching the tube, almost everything are all also valid paths to the truth.  Sometimes.

Papa's quote above highlighted something I missed in the OP, that the beliefs she is referring to are based on wishful thinking and personal desires.  I'm not sure where what we're calling 'ordinary beliefs' fit in, all the JFK beliefs Jodie mentioned look like ordinary beliefs and not necessarily the product of wishful thinking necessarily; I believe Oswald acted alone for example but don't have any desires one way or the other that I'm aware of with that subject.  to that extent I think ordinary beliefs are paths to the truth.  For the beliefs Jodie originally referred to, beliefs based on wishful thinking, I'm not sure the extent those are paths to the truth, and would not in my view be superior to what's going on with 'ordinary beliefs' which I think is more firmly on the belief-fact spectrum in an objective sense.  I think those wishful beliefs relation to the truth would be more along the lines of shower and dream epiphanies, more as something that may occur to someone rather than a 'path' or a process.  For wishful beliefs we also have Hitchens' barrier, 'you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into', which may not exist with other belief flavors, so I think if the 'wishful' part of the wishful beliefs is not overcome, then it's relationship to the truth is usually just coincidental and is not what I'd call a valid path to the truth.

 

[Will Due]

 

Here's perhaps the most valid path to truth.

When you're not paying attention, it's when you bump your head running into it.