The Function Of Belief

[Paladin]

Why is it important to do anything with others? From what belief do you operate when a simple inquiry into the nature and function of belief becomes something that has to be done to the human race as a whole? Where does this motivation come from?
We, who can hardly care for and control ourselves have no business suggesting what needs to be done with the populace of the planet.
If change needs to happen, I'll give you one guess where it should start.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

So, are you suggesting that when people of a particular ideological bent seek control of the institutions of governance and education other people shouldn't oppose and seek to marginalize them? For example, when Christian whacko neo-conservative RWW nuts try to take over our country people who are interested in preserving the constitution and etc. should do nothing? Please, you live in Colorado Springs.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've suggested elsewhere that belief is an integral function of reason. I stand by that. But I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about how we make decisions about things in the absence of a complete set of facts.

Chris

 

[Taosaur]

Why is it important to do anything with others? From what belief do you operate when a simple inquiry into the nature and function of belief becomes something that has to be done to the human race as a whole? Where does this motivation come from?
We, who can hardly care for and control ourselves have no business suggesting what needs to be done with the populace of the planet.
If change needs to happen, I'll give you one guess where it should start.

Hehe, you started it.

Still, I think we're on topic here, asking whether there remains any function for belief. Of course, there's always plenty of work to do at home, "motes and beams" and all that.

 

[Taosaur]

So, are you suggesting that when people of a particular ideological bent seek control of the institutions of governance and education other people shouldn't oppose and seek to marginalize them? For example, when Christian whacko neo-conservative RWW nuts try to take over our country people who are interested in preserving the constitution and etc. should do nothing? Please, you live in Colorado Springs.

Chris

Opposing others doesn't amount to much if you have no alternatives or solutions. People will take the devil they know every time.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

That's why all that feel good sh** doesn't work! Gotta play hardball. Gotta railroad the idiots off the platform. Gotta play fast and dirty. That's what works. It's a tough world. Nice guys finish dead.

Chris

 

[noctuary]

That's why all that feel good sh** doesn't work! Gotta play hardball. Gotta railroad the idiots off the platform. Gotta play fast and dirty. That's what works. It's a tough world. Nice guys finish dead.

Chris

Technically everyone finishes dead.

 

[Paladin]

So, are you suggesting that when people of a particular ideological bent seek control of the institutions of governance and education other people shouldn't oppose and seek to marginalize them? For example, when Christian whacko neo-conservative RWW nuts try to take over our country people who are interested in preserving the constitution and etc. should do nothing? Please, you live in Colorado Springs.

Chris

I think you know me better than that Chris, and yes, I live in the middle of the evangelical vatican

But aside from the fact that political solutions only result in more conflict I am interested in the human predeliction toward harboring beliefs. I think it absolutely amazing behavior when you really stop and think about it. When a person forms a belief system they take this and that, and maybe leave something else out, but oh that thing over there is simply vile! So there is constantly this inner conflict this pull between poles of like and dislike, good and bad much of which is arbitrary.

Of course there are times when among peoples of all faiths and philosophies a common ground is reached. During a crisis 9/11, Katrina, the last Tsunami only then it seems are people in touch with one another in a real sense, sharing a raw human experience. After the dust clears and things settle down, once again we withdraw into our own little world, back to subject and object, to living in our own story or sharing a story with a select few, and even then only with mild contention.

I submit that there are only a very few who venture beyond what is safe and secure to live a life of freedom. Freedom, scary beyond belief, uncomfortable insubstantial perhaps with no place to rest your head!

Of course, I could be way off on that idea too.

 

[Taosaur]

That's why all that feel good sh** doesn't work! Gotta play hardball. Gotta railroad the idiots off the platform. Gotta play fast and dirty. That's what works. It's a tough world. Nice guys finish dead.

Chris

Then what?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sad thing is neither way will make any difference in our current state of being. Force will polarise opposition, drive it underground where it will fester. Interfaith cooperation will still be hijacked by the powerful. So the only solution that remains is exposure of all the myths for what they are. And the hope that gradually more and more people will be persuaded by the truth.

The world needs evangelical atheists!! God the irony!!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Then what?

Then all the little fuzzy rabbits come out to play. Heck, I don't know. I'm not an idealist. I do know that you either fight fire with fire or you wind up under the bus. It's easy to be a monk on a mountain top.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think you know me better than that Chris, and yes, I live in the middle of the evangelical vatican

But aside from the fact that political solutions only result in more conflict I am interested in the human predeliction toward harboring beliefs. I think it absolutely amazing behavior when you really stop and think about it. When a person forms a belief system they take this and that, and maybe leave something else out, but oh that thing over there is simply vile! So there is constantly this inner conflict this pull between poles of like and dislike, good and bad much of which is arbitrary.

Of course there are times when among peoples of all faiths and philosophies a common ground is reached. During a crisis 9/11, Katrina, the last Tsunami only then it seems are people in touch with one another in a real sense, sharing a raw human experience. After the dust clears and things settle down, once again we withdraw into our own little world, back to subject and object, to living in our own story or sharing a story with a select few, and even then only with mild contention.

I submit that there are only a very few who venture beyond what is safe and secure to live a life of freedom. Freedom, scary beyond belief, uncomfortable insubstantial perhaps with no place to rest your head!

Of course, I could be way off on that idea too.

I think that we're engaged from a very young age in constructing the myth of ourselves. We want to feel that we're players in a larger story. A story that makes us important, ties us to the past and the future in a way that makes a sensible continuum of what would otherwise seem to be random and meaningless events. Believing in large precepts and archetypal forces saves us from the insignificance of our small lives, and releases us from coming to grips with the uncertainty and amorality of our existence. Since absolutely everyone, it seems, is deeply vested in preserving the myth of human importance, and the inevitability and continuity of history and human progress, the pursuit of real intellectual freedom winds up pissing absolutely everyone off because it threatens their sense of participation in the collective mythos. Everyone must believe.

That's my experience anyway.

Cheers and happy new year!

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Opposing others doesn't amount to much if you have no alternatives or solutions. People will take the devil they know every time.

Giving warnings about possible flaws is not without value, even if you don't have a solution to sell to them.

That's why all that feel good sh** doesn't work! Gotta play hardball. Gotta railroad the idiots off the platform. Gotta play fast and dirty. That's what works. It's a tough world. Nice guys finish dead.

Chris

Hey, I see an honest skeptic as my best friend.
The scientific method wouldn't go anywhere without people testing hypotheses and disproving the false ones. Sure, not everyone sees the value in this, and might feel slighted by having someone punch holes in their beliefs, which can be a hindrance to progress.

Then what?

Then all the little fuzzy rabbits come out to play. Heck, I don't know. I'm not an idealist. I do know that you either fight fire with fire or you wind up under the bus. It's easy to be a monk on a mountain top.

Chris

Then you go back to the drawing board, in order to work on the next arm of the spiral.

 

[juantoo3]

What purpose can belief (as defined as a function) serve?

To quell fear and open the door to sanity.

Things are not a certain way because we believe, we believe because things are a certain way. How we perceive a thing influences what we believe. The elephant and the blind men...no two believed the same, yet they all had a belief for they all had experienced the same "thing" simply from differing perspectives.

We need to make sense of our surroundings so that we are not overcome with fear of the unknown. When we believe (what we often call "know"), we no longer fear, we are no longer irrational, we are sane. It can be a frightening experience to have one's knowledge and underlying beliefs usurped.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

As our ancestors brain functions increased, due to the ever wider set of environmental conditions we faced as a result of our rapid expansion out of Africa, we somewhere along the way developed the sense of time. Probably in part due to synchronising our nomadic encampments with animal migrations. With that sense of time and our other capacities of speech and artistic expression we began to ponder our place, the big questions of where from, where to and why. We only had nature back then of course and we of course drew from that. Gods were represented by animals and constellations because that was our world. As we settled into non-nomadic townships we began to lose touch with nature and our Gods became anthropomorphisised. Just as our art developed in complexity so did our religions, or belief systems. Whatever our state of cultural evolution it was reflected in the belief systems.

You seem to have omitted one glaring piece of evidence, the pervasiveness across the Old World of the chase for "G-d" particularly by peoples who had no luxury of frivolity. Inventive imagination...tools, fire, paintings to invoke sympathetic magic; yes, practical application of trial and error. Invention for the sake of invention...lies...no. I am hard pressed to explain how any shaman, let alone every shaman, could invent "G-d" and sell it to the people. No, there is something there, something we look beyond now, mostly, to our collective detriment.

 

[Bruno's logic]

Pascal's Wager Refuted

-by Theodore M. Drange






The argument (call it "PW") may be formulated as follows:

(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated.

(b)If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life. If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.

(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.

(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.

(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.
Here are some objections to PW:

1. It is possible to prove that God does not exist. Hence, premises (a) & (b) of PW are moot or irrelevant.

2. There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the arguement from nobelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.

3. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.

4. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.

5. It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.

6. To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.

7. Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.

For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.








Jesus and Buddha, Aristotle and Einstein, Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell,

To name but a few lifetimes that have been spent studying existence because of personal beliefs...​

The function of belief?
is the pathway to spiritual awakening.
or
The hope that this post would soon come to an end.
-Bruno​

 

[juantoo3]

Thomas Kuhn, anyone?

I agree that over thousands of years a sense of fear, curiosity and wonderment will have caused us to ponder the Big Questions and that this will have intertwined with cultural, societal and political developments. We are indeed tied to the dawn of our race because, as a species we have only been around for a few moments (in geological time). I also agree that superstitions that were once helpful in some way (perhaps psychologically) (or at worst irrelevant) may now be dangerous (or at least holding us back).

But we can’t “evolve” overnight, modern man is only modern on the surface, I think. The danger in a Dawkins-type approach to me (which I think is where you’re coming from?) is that we might, just might, be trying to throw a very important baby out that’s somewhere in the bath water. And if we do, and it’s a mistake, what would the consequences of that be?

Is that why some of us are broke?

If you ain't broke, we can't fix ya!

<still, small voice>psst, you don't wanna get fixed!</voice>

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 think we are looking at a chicken / egg puzzle. Belief or inquiry? Either way there is that element of fear to overcome. Fire is something to fear, it burns. Yeah, but look, I found a way to harness it to keep warm and cook my food because I no longer fear it (or vice versa).

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.

That is why I have issues with Dawkins "memes." Meme is another way of saying belief system, and all peoples have a belief system, including Dawkins. I find it disingenuous to fault some people for a trait all people share, in principle if not in particulars.

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.

I submit that there are only a very few who venture beyond what is safe and secure to live a life of freedom. Freedom, scary beyond belief, uncomfortable insubstantial perhaps with no place to rest your head!

How close to the edge of insanity do these people dwell? I submit it is impossible to hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever. Even an attitude of "unknowing," the seeker, still must maintain core beliefs and values, among them his elemental morality.

The world needs evangelical atheists!! God the irony!!

ROFLMAO!

Giving warnings about possible flaws is not without value, even if you don't have a solution to sell to them.


Hey, I see an honest skeptic as my best friend.
The scientific method wouldn't go anywhere without people testing hypotheses and disproving the false ones. Sure, not everyone sees the value in this, and might feel slighted by having someone punch holes in their beliefs, which can be a hindrance to progress.

 

[Bruno's logic]

Jesus and Buddha, Aristotle and Einstein, Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell,
to name but a few lifetimes that have been spent studying existence because of personal beliefs...​

The function of belief?​

The human pathway to spiritual awakening.​

-Bruno​

 

[Paladin]

Jesus and Buddha, Aristotle and Einstein, Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell,

to name but a few lifetimes that have been spent studying existence because of personal beliefs...​

The function of belief?​

The human pathway to spiritual awakening.​

-Bruno​

Argumentum ad verecundiam
Jesus wasn't a Christian
Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

Watts and Campbell both studied existence through the filter of belief.

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a belief system, but at least keep in awareness that is what you are doing. One may do or believe anything they wish but stay aware.

Actuality is engaged by the individual when they begin to stop and look. And for all we know the elements found in many religions will be found also in an honest inquiry.

 

[Paladin]

If you ain't broke, we can't fix ya!

<still, small voice>psst, you don't wanna get fixed!</voice>


I think we are looking at a chicken / egg puzzle. Belief or inquiry? Either way there is that element of fear to overcome. Fire is something to fear, it burns. Yeah, but look, I found a way to harness it to keep warm and cook my food because I no longer fear it (or vice versa).


That is why I have issues with Dawkins "memes." Meme is another way of saying belief system, and all peoples have a belief system, including Dawkins. I find it disingenuous to fault some people for a trait all people share, in principle if not in particulars.






How close to the edge of insanity do these people dwell? I submit it is impossible to hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever. Even an attitude of "unknowing," the seeker, still must maintain core beliefs and values, among them his elemental morality.


ROFLMAO!

You see all this is exactly what I'm about here Juan, there is no contention of belief just an awareness of what is going on in the process or function of belief. Without an antagonist there can be no protagonist. It is possible to have dialog and inquiry without debate but most people do not think that way, there must be an opposition to be challenged or we are lost!
We can always keep our ideas of morality and ethics but why fall asleep at the switch and compartmentalize each thing we come in contact with, labeling it and thereby insulating ourselves from actuality, from things as they are.