Why Believe?
In the discussion thread to the previous post, I referred in passing to “consensus” as one way that people have of coming to believe that something is true. I gave a couple examples: The lighting is poor; you think you see something but aren’t sure, so you ask people next to you if they see it too. Scientists replicate experiments and conduct peer reviews. Janice, in the same thread, replied with an example where she thought consensus didn’t apply.
Consider the following beliefs.
1. Water blessed by a priest has special powers.
2. There is a force we call “gravity” that accounts for certain things – for example, why objects fall.
3. Papua New Guinea exists.
4. God exists.
5. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
6. Jesus was resurrected.
7. You were visited by your deceased grandmother.
8. The earth revolves around the sun.
9. You need to use the bathroom but you're pretty sure somebody’s already in there…
10. It’s a good idea to change the oil in your car every three thousand miles.
What leads us to believe some things and not others? What inclines us to think that one thing is true and another doubtful or false - what sort of mental process or processes are involved?
Even more fundamentally: if you can identify what sort of mental process(es) compel your convictions, then what leads you to believe that this process is itself a sound approach to finding out what’s really true?
Please Note
Your comments are very thoughtful. And there are enough of them that I’m finding that for reasons of “time management” I need to get creative in my method of responding.
I enjoy replying to every single comment in detail – and I have to restrain myself! So please bear with me as I figure out a more efficient way forward.
I’ll be posting as regularly as ever and continue to read each comment thoroughly. I’ll continue responding to points raised in every discussion thread – but not necessarily to every point and every comment every time!
Thank you for giving me this problem –
Paul
Consider the following beliefs.
1. Water blessed by a priest has special powers.
2. There is a force we call “gravity” that accounts for certain things – for example, why objects fall.
3. Papua New Guinea exists.
4. God exists.
5. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
6. Jesus was resurrected.
7. You were visited by your deceased grandmother.
8. The earth revolves around the sun.
9. You need to use the bathroom but you're pretty sure somebody’s already in there…
10. It’s a good idea to change the oil in your car every three thousand miles.
What leads us to believe some things and not others? What inclines us to think that one thing is true and another doubtful or false - what sort of mental process or processes are involved?
Even more fundamentally: if you can identify what sort of mental process(es) compel your convictions, then what leads you to believe that this process is itself a sound approach to finding out what’s really true?
Please Note
Your comments are very thoughtful. And there are enough of them that I’m finding that for reasons of “time management” I need to get creative in my method of responding.
I enjoy replying to every single comment in detail – and I have to restrain myself! So please bear with me as I figure out a more efficient way forward.
I’ll be posting as regularly as ever and continue to read each comment thoroughly. I’ll continue responding to points raised in every discussion thread – but not necessarily to every point and every comment every time!
Thank you for giving me this problem –
Paul
Posted by Paul at 7:11 PM Permalink
44 Comments:
I've been reading you for nearly a year now, but have never commented. I initially came to you through Homo Escapeons...a friend of mine (in the flesh, as opposed to cyber).
You ask what leads us to believe some things and not others...well, experience does, blind accceptance of what we're told does, some sort of evidence does...there's also a theory that says people believe what they want to believe. Neuroscience is exploring the way our brains work but science has also discovered that "awareness" doesn't take place in the brain alone. So, the question becomes very personal. Why do YOU believe in what you call truth? What makes YOU sure of facts? The answers make for interesting debates. As you pointed out, how do any of us know our approach is sound?
From a personal perspective, I belong to the school of "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." My mother often said, "Nothing is as it seems," meaning that everything is multidimensional and we see only one part of it at any given moment (except those rare and beautiful and sometimes frightening transcendental moments when one understands the inexplicable.) And sometimes I don't believe that.
Beliefs can be true, false or unprovable. They are opinions, for the most part, but can also be personal revelations not supported by fact or science. (1. - 10.)
Facts can be supported by empirical research, science, reliable sensory input or supported by historical or other documentation with a high degree of certainty. (2., 3., 5., 8., 9., 10.)
Faith is trust in the belief of the unprovable. (1., 4., 6., 7.)
This system works for me. Sometimes if I'm questioning my belief of something, I run it through Sagan to see if it holds water.
That Jesus was ressurected, on the other hand, has corroborating reports of sorts but not strictly of the same era. The gospels are dated some time after Jesus' era, so the stories are not first hand. The notion of resurrection does not sit well with anything else I have met up with in my life. Unlike New Guinea, the Jesus story clashes with all my other life experiences and so I am skeptical.
Similarly with stories of someone being visited by their Grandmother's ghost. It has never happened to me so I have no basis for accepting it or rejecting it on a personal front. It just does not fit with my experiences or with my expectations of the physical world.
From another, but related perspective, I'd say we're sort-of hard-wired to believe in something. We have a natural tendency to believe in something that forms the basis for our understanding of the world, of our lives. But, I think it's deeper than a mental process; it spurs mental processes but the core of it is a tendency, an innate desire to balance/center us in the order of the world. It's universal, but also personal.
It seems as though truth is an understanding others share.
I just started it and reading your post it made me think you might enjoy it. It is the result of some of the science meeting the Dali Lama has had and the interface with Buddhism.
I feel that belief is like prejudism you sorta choose what you want to belive and what you don't and alot of that is based on how you were raised and what you were exposed to...?
Similarly, to deny 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 or 10 is to defy the consensus, just as it would be to wear outlandish clothes or find other ways to make the effort to swim against the tide of convention.
I would not think that we need in any of the above to invoke the model of science with its experiments and peer reviews. Such procedures are expensive in time, money and enthusiasm and we would not do them unless we had some axe to grind.
1, 4, 6 and 7 might be taken for granted if you conformed to a certain ambient culture, or might be a defiance against your ambient culture.
The power of the mind is astonishing and can lead us to believe many things. For example when dreaming we can run, we can feel the pain of a knife, we can say words, yet not a single movement or sound comes from the body while doing this! And when awake our mind and its senses deceive us too...for when we look at a movie, for example, which is made up of still shots the eyes tell us it is moving! We have to therefore investigate the mind and its powers first before knowing what the truth of anything is. This would lead to very shocking answers to the beliefs you mention in the post.
I'm afraid that I can't really go along with your "two question" thesis. While I agree that pursuit of truth can be a noble effort, most of the emphasis seems to be centered on "self." Of all the history and philosophy that I have studied (which is admittedly limited), such emphasis on self rarely seems to go along with peace or happiness.
I am very curious about what you mean by "moral re-education." Could you give me a description of what that is?
Can you tell me why you do not consider item #4 as not supported by facts? It seems to me that the documentation of the event is at least as great as some other historical events considered factual.
huh? I've been there twice on holz :)
Keshi.
You are quite right about the study of philosophy being concerned with the self. One starts with the premise there are 2 different selfs to man; the outer self (the ego - needed for our daily affairs) and the inner higher self (that divine part of us if you will). When one studies and follows philosophy he realizes the ego is led step by step, usually through some pain and suffering, wherein it learns about the higher self and its relation to the world and to one another. When one learns and feels the existence of a perfect, higher and divine self he also learns how to keep an awareness of this in all his actions. He will then know how to maintain a calm and peaceful attitude in all areas of his life by living through the divine self and not the I, me or mine of the ego.
When one finally realizes that his grosser side, the ego, is running his life he brings every action and every thought up for scrutiny as to whether it is for selfish motives or for the divine good. It takes a lot of courage and stamina to scrutinize your every move to determine its purpose, usefulness and goodness. As a result of our actions, whether through ignorance or stubbornness, many painful circumstances come our way until we learn completely the higher laws of the universe. Often people do not connect a painful circumstance with something they have done or said and the same circumstance repeats itself till the lesson is learned. This is the moral re-education I was referring to. One example is the senseless slaughter of helpless animals for our consumption. Hope this helps explain what I meant.
You know Homo Escapeons too? So does “Within Without.”
Consensus – "Do others see it too?" – also seems to me like an important element in becoming convinced that our beliefs are correct.
So then, I guess Homo Escapeons does exist.
G BAKER: You point to the practical value of getting our beliefs right – the penalty, as you say, that we might pay for being wrong. That can be construed in at least a couple of ways. In the here and now, faulty or deliberately manipulated intelligence can, for example, produce military blunder. And if one believes that having a particular religious belief means the difference between salvation and perdition, then one sees an ultimate practical consequence.
PAULINE: That covers a lot of the territory – the role of logic; truth as subjective/objective/absolute; as based on acceptance of authority; believing what we want to believe, and so forth. It sounds like in the end you might be suggesting something along the lines of: There isn’t any way of knowing what a sound approach to truth is –it’s all private/personal/subjective.
What about science? That approach to belief and knowledge produces results (technology) that we’re all making use of…
SUSIE Q: Sounds like a good “koan” for promoting something like “detachment from the finite self,” to speak along Buddhist lines.
ROSIE: Scientific method/direct observation produces those beliefs in whose truth value you have the greatest confidence. We’re literally surrounded by the technological products of science. So at the least, I think it’s hard to argue against the scientific method as being a demonstrably sound approach to truths having to do with the observable universe.
LEE: In brief, you bring up what looks to me like a central consideration around belief: How good is the evidence?
STEVEN B: Thanks for introducing the phrase “believe in.” I think it indicates how we tend to put religious beliefs in a separate category – the category of "beliefs that give meaning to our lives."
Does this mean that our method for arriving at such beliefs ought to substantially diverge from the methods by which we arrive at beliefs that don’t have to do with religion?
N2, you contrast belief with "understanding" - same as “knowing?” I also have the feeling that the practical value of belief is basic in some sense - others have intimated this also.
Just to toss this out to everyone: What's the relationship of the practical value of our beliefs to their truth value?
PECOS B: You point to the role of how we’re raised in relation to our religious beliefs. I’d have to say, in the words of the Seinfeld episode, that it does seem like a “big coincidence” that the vast majority of people belonging to one or another of the world’s religious traditions were brought up in those traditions. How we’re raised has to be a big factor there, it seems to me.
YVES: You seem to find value in consensus too. I’m less clear on your contrast of consensus with science, where it seems to me consensus is involved.
JANICE: Regarding your two questions – “Who am I?” and “What is my relationship to the world?”
I like them a lot. I'd want to expand the second and call it maybe our relationship to “the full context in which we find ourselves” (for example, “life as a whole” or for some “God”).
To me, how we come to answer these questions could be viewed as the framework for how we lead our lives and whether we do so with increasing or diminishing integrity. I’m less clear on how you relate these questions to belief.
G. BAKER: To me, Janice’s questions (see my expansion of the second one above) could involve either increasing or diminishing emphasis on the self depending on how one answers them and lives the answers. Oh… just scrolled down. Looks like Janice is replying to you by elaborating her take on the same basic thought…
KESHIi: I just knew somebody would come out with that…! I should have picked maybe Outer Mongolia… (Now I’m probably about to hear from all those Outer Mongolian lurkers…)
Did I tell you that I like you new blog and Im glad you out there - All the best to you ..Im praying for your in my own way
One of the greatest values I see, and this stems from inaccurate beliefs, is to witness their impermanence. I see things not as they are, simply the way I have come to "know" them.
NASRA, thanks. Is it contemplative prayer or petitionary prayer? Kidding...! Subject matter for another another day -
NON HIGHLIGHTED H: Still thinking? You don’t have to answer that…
N2: Good point – our beliefs can have an influence on our experiences; the two don’t exist in isolation. And your provisional take on beliefs is something that I would think everyone would agree with – to some extent, if not completely. Many people do hold to certain beliefs as being absolute…
DR SU: We’d probably need to talk for four or five nights till two in the morning on this one! But I think that I either know what you mean or have experienced something similar or parallel. My own focus today isn’t belief, whereas in the past, my focus was belief and then unbelief.
Today I’d describe myself as knowing a few things. Not many, but the few things I know, I know well. And the knowledge here is a matter of direct experience.
CRYSTAL, are you reading this and saying “Aha! Gnostic!” I really should read up on that because for all I gnow maybe I am. But my impression of Gnosticism is that it’s talking about an arcane or mysterious or special knowledge. For me, I think I just know a few things that pretty much everybody else already knows but may not always have noticed that they know.
Isn't Gravity called the law of gravity? meaning past theory? The force of gravity cannot be denied because it can be measured.
I take your point on measuring it... but maybe what they measure isn't "gravity" it's "weight" and we explain weight with the theory of gravity.
We need help, Kathy. I majored in English. How about you?
N2 is on this thread, maybe we should ask him, he seems to know a lot about science.
As far as God goes, before measuring God's force I think we'd need to clarify what we mean by "God" and start off by seeing whether we believe or know that God exists.
Why believe? because it gives us hope. we need something to do...someone to love and something to hope for!
Returning to my role as the professor on Gilligan's Island, I think that while we can measure weight and even feel weight with our senses, it never would have occured to us, without science, to think of an object's weight as the pull of the planetary mass on it.
From common sense and direct experience, we'd just think of weight as a property belonging to the object itself and not as the exertion of a force - "gravity" - of a much more massive object on a smaller.
So I'm pretty sure gravity is a theory.
I can't argue about gravity being a theory or not...my knowledge is small on that subject. It's an interesting subject...now my curiosity is aroused.
I do believe that most beliefs are passed down (as the contemporary erudite talk goes) from generation to generation, at the cellular level. Based on experience and observation, I will agree. :) in addition, the millieu one grows up in has a huge determinig factor on what one believes or not - at least, up until a certain age.
That is why it so difficult to change certain engrained thinking/behavior patterns; cultural “traditions” survive not only by spoken word but also by “inheritance”, and repetitive behavior observance – ours or that of others in the vicinity…(hm?).
One is capable of acquiring or changing such “knowledge” – thank God – unfortunately, sometimes, at a great personal cost.
For most curious, inquisitive people, this is a continuos process, it is what keeps “the world going around”
The information is acquired through a variety of means.
The information is processed in time (by personal experience and or observation)
Lastly, one behaves/lives the information – thus “making it real”… hopefully, influencing others – and so on…
And, not to leave a lot of people out – sheer peer pressure can lead many to believe the utterly Generally my beliefs are based on observation and experience.
That said, I do believe that some of these beliefs are passed down (as the contemporary erudite talk goes) from generation to generation, at the cellular level. Based on experience and observation, I will agree. J
That is why it so difficult to change certain engrained thinking/behavior patterns; cultural “traditions” survive not only by spoken word but also by “inheritance”, and repetitive behavior observance – ours or that of others in the vicinity…(hm?).
One is capable of acquiring or changing such “knowledge” – thank God – unfortunately, sometimes, at a great personal cost.
For most curious, inquisitive people, this is a continuos process, it is what keeps “the world going around”
The information is acquired through a variety of means.
The information is processed in time (by personal experience and or observation)
Lastly, one behaves/lives the information – thus “making it real”… hopefully, influencing others – and so on…
And, not to leave a lot of people out – sheer peer pressure can lead many to believe the utterly unbelievable and the most absurdly impossible - or, vise versa!
impossible and unbelievable!
Love and joy
Belief finds its roots in all that we are. It reflects back at us what we see in ourselves.
The philosophers tend to believe that we can know far less than the scientists tell us, and nothing at all about god's existance.
As for history - look to journalism to decide it's accuracy. 100 years from now Coulter's lie "Edwards is a faggot" will live on in so much print that people may well think it's undeniably true, based on the "weight of evidence."
And then there is the problem of history being written by the victors......
Nowadays, the concept of a “law” receives some good debate. Some like the predictability from classical days where “laws” for some were viewed to be a direct work of God. Others, such as myself, view them as regularities within a self-consistent universe or whole or, for me, Tao.
That being said I still believe that the fear of being wrong and unacceptable to other people is the driving force that causes humans to adopt positions and doctrines that individually they would toss out with the bathwater..but get them togther in a group and watch the dynamics change!
I suppose that somebody should mention that empirical data that can be tested and evaluated helps but most people like a fancier explanation..basically we love mystery..it is always a letdown when we discover something..we don't want to be able to explain it..where is the fun in that?
That's my final answer..
humans love mystery.
Thanks.
It's nice to meet you!
An anonymous monk from the 14th century wrote that we should accept that there would always be a "cloud of unknowing" between God and ourselves. He said "Let God draw thy love up to that cloud" and forget everything else. He makes it sound easy!
In my effort to be briefer and have time for the little things like say eating supper, in what follows I'll be succinct maybe to the point of being annoying. Then I'll try to come up with a follow up post for tomorrow that might be a way of bringing sharper focus to all this - or not!
ANGEL DUST: Genetically inherited beliefs? I haven't heard of this idea before...
DON I: I can see that - Buddhists as minimalist believers, so to speak.
You say "Belief finds its roots in all that we are. It reflects back at us what we see in ourselves."
Sounds like this refers specifically to religious beiefs. And maybe that you're saying their significance is subjective - or, I think more likely, that you might be going in a Buddhist direction and saying they're beyond the categories of subjective/objective.
HAYDEN: I never read the book but that famous phrase never added up for me personally - how thinking would be the measure of being...
History, for sure, is far from pure and impartial obsevation/recording. All the same, many things that we believe happened historically have a lot of evidence supporting them...
N2: So maybe a "law" is a theory that's especially useful or important... maybe it's fundamental in the sense that other theories presume or depend on the theories we call "laws."
HOMO ESCAPEONS: You cite what you see as two major factors behind religious beief: fear of being wrong and unacceptable to other people within a community of believers; and love of "mystery." That word can be used in at least a couple different ways, but I think that here you mean love of being mystified - seeing things that fly in the face of explanation or appear to.
As far as fear goes: do you think that's the most basic fear that religious belief addresses? How would religious belief have gotten going to begin with - to the point where there were communities of believers there to pressure other people into belief?
Any positive energy, so to speak, in religion? Or 100% fear-driven?
HAZZBUZZ: I think that for a lot of people, including some portion of people who hold to religious beliefs, belief is viewed as being, as you suggest, in some sense provisional.
The author of The Cloud of Unknowing was himself a Christian mystic and monk (H.E.: this points to a second usage of that term "mystery") who apparently would have held certain beliefs. Yet his faith was something that he himself saw as transcending belief.
Paul: I think of laws and theories in the Buddhist sense, that once you have crossed the river, it's best to leave the boat behind.
In other words, use them as vehicles, but never let then get in the way of your sense of awe.
I never read Einstein say he knew God..what did he mean by that? I read that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. He did believe in a force that gave the universe order.
Awe/wonder/what I think of as response to genuine mystery - that would be a good subject sometime.
MARISSA: Intuition - that could be thought of along with tomorrow's post in the context of discussing evidence and what makes it stronger or weaker.
I like to think of the scientific method as an especially rigorous and focused way of doing the sort of thinking that people have probably always had to do to a considerable degree to elude large carnivores, survive the winter, etc.
But then I was an English major so who knows...
Post a Comment