The Function Of Belief

[Paladin]

You see what is amazing is that we have this capacity, are predisposed to forming an entire story to explain that which is. Some stories are religious in nature, others while being secular are defended with the same veracity as those who are religious. Even beliefs about who we are, what we like and dislike, what our limitations are and should be. Our entire lives are lived out from mental constructs.
Snoopy mentions wonderment, curiosity and fear. Didn't Rumi once advise us to "Sell our cleverness and purchase bewilderment"?

SG points out that believing is a verb. Yes indeed and in that sense there is a purpose. After all I need to believe that the rules of physics exist before I commit to troubleshooting an electrical or mechanical problem in a machine. I need to believe that I can push my physical boundaries when I run or work out. But do we really need that tendency to form a story to insulate us from what is? Isn't it really just a psychological security blanket?
To reduce what we are talking about here to mere idolatry marginalizes the import of the behavior.

I have nothing personally against belief, or beliefs but there seems nothing in them that engages one in a relationship to actuality. No matter what ism, theory or philosophy one holds up as map and model of actuality, more than likely it is only another story.

And by holding these stories so dear so precious that we would kill rather than give them up, are we missing something vital?
So that being said, how would this kind of behavior serve us as a species?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Snoopy,

Evolutionary changes do not happen fast in a static environment. Tumultuous times force the big changes. With global warming's symptoms exceeding the climate modellers worst case scenarios we may be entering such a time.....like it or not. Do we need ancient superstition to survive this? Or do we need to draw on what makes sapiens truly unique.....our intellect, logic and ingenuity?

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

So that being said, how would this kind of behavior serve us as a species?

In purely simple terms it is that cut-throat heartless dynamic called survival of the fittest. The divisions that are constructed between belief systems serve toward social inclusion or exclusion and define the tribe you will compete for resources with and those you will compete against. We live in a global village now, but resources are still limited. Religions serve as a foundation, focus for a fundamental drive toward survival. But we have evolved technologically to the point of mutually assured destruction and so this ancient survival trait has now become counter-productive. Admittedly religion is not the only thing we use to define our social identity. But it is the biggest and because of its irrational claim to higher authority the most dangerous.

Tao

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy mentions wonderment, curiosity and fear. Didn't Rumi once advise us to "Sell our cleverness and purchase bewilderment"?

Is that why some of us are broke?

But you make good points. Perhaps constructs and stories enable us to "get on with our lives" with a measure of certainty and free up our minds by "trusting" the world to behave in predictable ways. What we need to do is clean the dust off the mirror.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi Snoopy,

Evolutionary changes do not happen fast in a static environment. Tumultuous times force the big changes. With global warming's symptoms exceeding the climate modellers worst case scenarios we may be entering such a time.....like it or not. Do we need ancient superstition to survive this? Or do we need to draw on what makes sapiens truly unique.....our intellect, logic and ingenuity?

Tao

Yes we do. But one can't will oneself to evolve in the Darwinian sense, either physically or psychologically "overnight."

I don't think we need "ancient superstition" though, but I'm still worried about that baby in the bath water.

s.

 

[earl]

My point, of course, was that part of the innate nature of humans is the capacity to wonder as was mentioned in this thread which is almost always accompanied by beliefs, however tentative, about that which we wonder. To demonstrate just how "natural" and innate that is all you have to do is listen in on the explanations for how things are very young children give wholly independent of whatever explanations adults may attempt to hand them. They will come up with their own answers (i.e. beliefs) in the face of no adult input. In fact, if humans did not have belief systems by which to judge those held by others those individuals would hold all belief systems equally probable as I was attempting to point out- not a very tenable way to proceed through life. The key, of course, is the tenacity with which a belief is held- is it resistive to contradictory evidence? Another key which harkens to the title of the thread is how a belief functions for us including the question do our beliefs ultimately allow us to live contentedly within our own skin? Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

 

[seattlegal]

Perhaps this might shed some light of the function of belief:

from etymology online:

belief c.1175, replaced O.E. geleafa, from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).

believe O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.​

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater as per Snoopy: Just because people love lies, it doesn't make loving the truth something to be avoided.

This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted.
~C. S. Lewis
​

One could easily lose one's power of discernment by throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

...Which reminds me of another saying: Lies need to be propped up, but Truth can stand on its own.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

A very valid point. I would never be held down to say that all belief has no merit. The real issue is with separating that which is fanciful, or worse still deliberately manipulative, dogma from that which is part of our essential social and psychological fabric for the survival of our species. Across the board, when we look at those that express they have belief, we do not see their individually arrived at beliefs but an indoctrination into the established system of the region they find themselves in. Proof in itself of the invalidity of all claims of divine sanction. Perhaps it can be claimed that I too have succumbed to social pressures that prevail in my own secular, highly educated and largely science dominated culture. I cannot but be a product of my environment after all. I have to have a belief, to a point, to form a debatable position. But there is a strong case for saying it is time to start to throw out that which is demonstrably fanciful. And that the world is held captive by a couple of old books and the crass interpretations that stem from them is plainly wrong and it is time for rational people to start saying "no more". I do not have any wish to deprive people of their comfort in hard times, nor the expression at the joy of being alive. But however important such things are on an individual level, across cultures religion has become a cancerous problem that needs addressed. And the surgeons scalpel is rationality.

Tao

 

[Snoopy]

the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread.

Oh! You've un-reified my baby

s.

 

[Paladin]

My point, of course, was that part of the innate nature of humans is the capacity to wonder as was mentioned in this thread which is almost always accompanied by beliefs, however tentative, about that which we wonder. To demonstrate just how "natural" and innate that is all you have to do is listen in on the explanations for how things are very young children give wholly independent of whatever explanations adults may attempt to hand them. They will come up with their own answers (i.e. beliefs) in the face of no adult input. In fact, if humans did not have belief systems by which to judge those held by others those individuals would hold all belief systems equally probable as I was attempting to point out- not a very tenable way to proceed through life. The key, of course, is the tenacity with which a belief is held- is it resistive to contradictory evidence? Another key which harkens to the title of the thread is how a belief functions for us including the question do our beliefs ultimately allow us to live contentedly within our own skin? Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

So why is it necessary to have a belief system merely to begin to inquire as to the nature of actuality? It would seem counterproductive at best.
I don't think there was a consensus in the thread about the desireability of belief, just an open inquiry as to its function. That is why you will see no established value judgement in the thread.

After all if this descended into merely judging good or bad we would be right back into our own personal stories percieving each other from a belief system. If it were possible for a moment to step out of our story then perhaps a meaningful dialog could begin. Children, at their particular developmental level are prone to magical thinking and while charming, isn't really a serious inquiry. there is a pre-trans fallacy at work there that might not lend itself to pushing forward in our understanding.

 

[dauer]

I think some level of belief is necessary, as some previous posters in this thread have suggested, in order to make sense of the world. Without making certain assumptions there's nowhere to go. I may be misperceiving, but it seems like some of this thread is about certain kinds of beliefs and other parts of this thread are about belief in general.

In general there are certain things that I think the majority of humanity accepts. If I see a computer in front of me while I'm typing, I don't wonder if it might really be a chicken. I accept that at the very least, this computer is much like other computers and all of these computers have some relationship with the way things really are even if what I'm seeing is extremely filtered and limited. In that regard a common sense belief is I think much to do with what was stated above. I don't think it's possible to make sense of the world at all without certain common sense assumptions.

But there are many types of belief and I think some of them serve different purposes, for example belief about what ought to be. But then the nature of that belief will change its purpose. For example a passive belief in what ought to be may be a source of comfort. An active belief in what ought to be may motivate an individual to take steps to bring about that ought. Both types of beliefs about what ought to be may serve the individual as a type of validation that not only are they correct, but they will win out in the end. This might be contrasted with how someone might be effected by a belief that in the future everyone who shares their beliefs will die out and the rest of the world will realize how wrong the believer's group was. Beliefs along those lines don't, afaik, exist.

That type of ought is a bit larger, but there's also the basic daily ethical ought. I think that can allow someone to feel comfortable and secure in their actions.

Belief in general I think can also be a way to identify with a community or identify against a community.

There are still more types of beliefs: beliefs about group superiority/inferiority, beliefs about societal roles, etc.

--Dauer

edit: Please note that we can only effectively have this conversation by taking on certain beliefs e.g. that it's possible to communicate with other people, that the faculty of reason is a valid approach to this question, etc. You may argue that it's obvious all of these things are true, but I would argue that it still all comes down to one's epistemology.

 

[wil]

So why is it necessary to have a belief system merely to begin to inquire as to the nature of actuality? It would seem counterproductive at best.

Isn't that DesCarte? So where would you be? What do you NEED to believe right now? What belief systems can you give up, RIGHT NOW, and which do you need to keep?

I need to believe that I can push my physical boundaries when I run or work out.

Do you? Or is it actually the belief in boundaries that you are letting go of? If it is an actual physical boundary, could you push it?

 

[seattlegal]

Isn't that DesCarte? So where would you be? What do you NEED to believe right now? What belief systems can you give up, RIGHT NOW, and which do you need to keep?

I need to believe that I can push my physical boundaries when I run or work out.

Do you? Or is it actually the belief in boundaries that you are letting go of? If it is an actual physical boundary, could you push it?

Which would give out first, your will or your ligament?

 

[Taosaur]

But however important such things are on an individual level, across cultures religion has become a cancerous problem that needs addressed. And the surgeons scalpel is rationality.

Tao

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?

I agree that religious institutions are largely parasitic, and that much of their pathology derives from the power they offer to opportunists. I also think we need to rationally assess the roots and function of religion, but I would not expect that assessment to lead to victory for either reason or belief. I look at religion much as Joseph Campbell presented it, as varied but similar symbol-sets for engaging a shared reality.

The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

Going back to Paladin's statements, the symbol-sets of religion only stand between the believer and reality when they aren't being used correctly. A functioning symbol-set and body of practice provides the believer with powerful tools for engaging and operating within the human condition. Those same symbols can be perverted by charismatics to act as blinders, but what is needed is a thorough housecleaning, not to burn down the house.

 

[wil]

Which would give out first, your will or your ligament?

Exactly what I was referring to, if you can pass the boundary and not pull, break, damage beyond repair, the boundary was belief. So it wasn't belief to pass the boundary, but belief in the boundary that one had to pass.

 

[Paladin]

Exactly what I was referring to, if you can pass the boundary and not pull, break, damage beyond repair, the boundary was belief. So it wasn't belief to pass the boundary, but belief in the boundary that one had to pass.

Yup, the whole mind/body thingy. I notice this most on long runs and when working to failure with heavy weights. After about seven miles I start talking to myself (ok, you don't have to do this fast--all ya gotta do is make it home )

 

[Tao_Equus]

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?


The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

That would be a good starting place. I have long advocated that all "national service" should become "international service", where one is duty bound to go and live, study and work in another nation.

Tao

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?

I agree that religious institutions are largely parasitic, and that much of their pathology derives from the power they offer to opportunists. I also think we need to rationally assess the roots and function of religion, but I would not expect that assessment to lead to victory for either reason or belief. I look at religion much as Joseph Campbell presented it, as varied but similar symbol-sets for engaging a shared reality.

The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

Going back to Paladin's statements, the symbol-sets of religion only stand between the believer and reality when they aren't being used correctly. A functioning symbol-set and body of practice provides the believer with powerful tools for engaging and operating within the human condition. Those same symbols can be perverted by charismatics to act as blinders, but what is needed is a thorough housecleaning, not to burn down the house.

O.K., but what you're really talking about here is how to ease ignorant people into reality. That's fine, and it's most important that we all find a way to just get along. But my experience, as an intelligent person who finds it essential to question and examine things carefully, is that while we have to preserve the illusion of metaphysical simplicity for the masses, the reality is in the long term, and in everyone's best interest, superstition isn't something that should be encouraged. We can't forever condone this sort of childishness. At some point the flat earthers have to be marginalized before their petty disagreements based on blind belief wipe us all out.

Chris

 

[Taosaur]

O.K., but what you're really talking about here is how to ease ignorant people into reality.

Um...no. Dogmatic Rationalism/Materialism ignores a wide swath of the human experience, and any attempt to impose The One, True Answer, be it religious, philosophical or scientific, ignores the variety of human consciousness. If you want to assume everyone is stupid and ought to be like you, go ahead, but that's part of the problem, not the solution. My point is that a new equilibrium needs to be established by consensus, and can't be imposed by anyone. Rather than telling everyone their beliefs are wrong, look for what you have in common, what you each find right and wrong in your own institutions. Encourage people to examine their traditions and institutions more closely, not discard them.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, that sounds real nice. What I'm saying is that not all concepts are of equal value. So long as whackos are marginalized from the institutions of power I don't have a problem with anyone subscribing to anything they please. But that doesn't mean that everyone's sacred cow pies are of equal, or any worth.

Chris