When to disbelieve long cherished beliefs

[Phlegmak]

At what point is it reasonable to disbelieve your long cherished beliefs? As can be seen in many threads, many people here believe things even after presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why? At what point does the evidence outweigh your faith?

Here are some examples of threads in which faith outweighs facts:

Perfection's evolution thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182407

My O'Reilly thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186509

Bozo Erectus's refusal to accept probability and causality:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185070

There are countless other examples where hard facts are ignored in favor of faith-based reasoning.

Obviously, I'm using the word "faith" to mean belief in something because you want to believe it.

I used to like Michael Moore. I watched his first TV show, "TV Nation." I grew to dislike it when I found that he consistently portrayed quotes from people out of context making them say things which they didn't. (For example, he had a show in which his premise was that white people were going extinct. He said, "Even Bob Dole believes it." He then showed Bob Dole with three white guys in a cage. One guy was dressed as a lumberjack, and the other two were wearing traditional work clothes of other jobs. Bob Dole said, "These men are endangered," and that was it. The clip was that short. So, obviously, Bob Dole was talking about the jobs of those men, not the white race. Yet that's what Michael Moore said he was talking about.) So, at this point in my life, I despise Michael Moore for lying constantly. To me, that seems like a logical stance.

Maybe I'm the crazy one for not having more faith-based beliefs. Maybe I should get it into my head that magic exists in the world and UFOs exist, and the Bermuda Triangle is dangerous.

 

[C~G]

There are countless other examples where hard facts are ignored in favor of faith-based reasoning.

Obviously, I'm using the word "faith" to mean belief in something because you want to believe it.

Reason is also form of faith my friend.

And I mean the word "reason" to mean belief in something because you want to believe it since some other people have given the right kind of interpretarion of the facts thus supporting your view of the world and enough people support this interpretarion based into simple two-dot logic (also known as rationality) which seems to overwhelm other forms of human intelligence.

Interesting subject especially since so many subjects seem to draw into conclusion that "rationality is everything".

 

[Turner]

For me, it was a slow realization that what I'd been taught was bumpkis. It wasn't a flash of lightning, it wasn't a sudden insight that what I'd been taught was completely and utterly wrong.

It was a bit here, a bit there, and one day I realized that I didn't believe that way anymore. My views had shifted in such a way that bit by bit it wasn't obvious, but when taken from a whole it was.

 

[Brighteye]

Reason is not a form of faith. Reason is the same as logic, which is a universal standard of proof.
Faith is belief without reason.

 

[Perfection]

At what point is it reasonable to disbelieve your long cherished beliefs?

The point it is no-longer supported by evidence.

As can be seen in many threads, many people here believe things even after presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why?

Because they operate from this false frame. In order to maintain intellectual stability our brains will filter out and sanitize contradictory evidence, it is extremely difficule to get someone to switch out of this mode.

The human brain is not a a completely rational thing and no amount of arguing will change that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Many times, one will have to 'back' an authority on a topic. Over time we give different levels of credence to different authorities. Often we'll pick an authority that 'vibes' best with our past experience. Other times we'll pick an authority that's made the fewest obvious errors. Finally, we'll sometimes pick authorities that seem to have the fewest ulterior motives.

For example, I have mostly blind faith about the chemical structure of sugars. I have no idea how they deduced where the -OH group is on a fructose vs. a glucose. I'm trusting the experts. To change my mind, one would have to either get the majority of experts to publically change their minds, or lead me step-by-step through a proof that the supposed 'truth' was wrong.

On the other hand, with global warming, it's mostly about credibility regarding motives. Every authority claiming that GW is something to ignore has massive motives, monetary motives, for getting people to ignore the evidence. Meanwhile, the scientists studying the matter not only have fewer (obvious) motives, but have massive consensus.

Religiously, the gods I was exposed to as a youth clearly don't exist as presented. In the process of becoming agnostic, I also decided upon criteria required to believe in a god. While I have not pursued all historical figures for evidence of these criteria, I have better things to do.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

One cherished belief system is based on 'faith' and the other based on 'evidence'. Both systems have their advantages, respective strengths and weaknesses. Drawing a circle around one set of beliefs and labelling them 'rational' while everything that falls outside of it is classified 'irrational' is subjective, counterproductive and sheds no light on anything but the psychology of the one doing the labelling.

Bozo Erectus's refusal to accept probability and causality:

I guess for some, my insistence that not everything is known, and that everything, including our most basic assumptions can be questioned, puts me solidly in the 'irrational' camp.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

At what point is it reasonable to disbelieve your long cherished beliefs? As can be seen in many threads, many people here believe things even after presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why? At what point does the evidence outweigh your faith?

You can't know everything there is to know, so for most people, faith fills in those gaps, providing a level of comfort. Most of the time, it doesn't cause any harm, until you have an experience that runs totally contrary to that belief. Some people's faith gets shaken, others doesn't.

The longer I've lived, the more cynical I've become. I've found that more and more of my long held ideas have been destroyed by experience with reality, and that I've become more Machiavellian as a result.

 

[warpus]

I guess for some, my insistence that not everything is known, and that everything, including our most basic assumptions can be questioned, puts me solidly in the 'irrational' camp.

There is nothing wrong with questioning established facts - in fact (no pun intended), it's something I would encourage.. However, questioning an established fact, and replacing that fact with another, based on nothing but sheer speculation are two entirely different things.

Questioning things = rational and good
Basing beliefs on sheer speculation alone = irrational and bad

 

[Bozo Erectus]

There is nothing wrong with questioning established facts - in fact (no pun intended), it's something I would encourage.. However, questioning an established fact, and replacing that fact with another, based on nothing but sheer speculation are two entirely different things.

We could get into a 20 page discussion about what exactly a 'fact' is, but generally speaking, I agree.

Questioning things = rational and good
Basing beliefs on sheer speculation alone = irrational and bad

I dont think anyone builds a belief system based on speculation, but on the percieved 'facts' of their faith. To me, speculation is what my thread was about, in other words: "Lets speculate about precognition." Faith claims to have answers, speculation merely asks questions.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it is time to question a cherished belief when you're presented with a viable alternative theory. It is time to discard a belief when evidence accumulates against it, or for the other theory.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think it is time to question a cherished belief when you're presented with a viable alternative theory. It is time to discard a belief when evidence accumulates against it, or for the other theory.

I dont think its possible for a viable alternative to appear until cherished beliefs are questioned.

 

[Veritass]

Every belief that you have is a choice that you make.

I choose to believe that the chemical structure of sugars is as the scientists say, for they many more distinctions of chemistry available to them than I do. In this case, I am basing my decision on authority. Where scientists are making purely scientific distinctions, I still give them credit.

I choose to believe that there is an intelligent order that created and animates the universe to work as perfect and harmonious whole. In this case, I am basing my decision on faith.

I also choose to believe in evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on this planet. In this case, I am basing my decision on scientific evidence.

I choose to believe that there is currently not sufficient evidence of anthropomorphic global warming to warrant the restrictions that people want to make on industry. In this case, I am basing my decision on skepticism. In recent years, I believe many "scientists" have gotten away from objective science and done a tremendous amount of whoring -- to either support industries, or support causes, or to support government positions, all to preserve funding.

I get most annoyed with people who do not make the choice to believe in anything. They argue to tear down any beliefs of the people around them, but offer no beliefs of their own. I believe our education system has forgotten that its job is to teach people to be able to think.

The whoring of scientists that I referred to has damaged the ability of many people to believe that there is scientific fact in the world, and value to be placed in scientifically-backed and evidentially-supported theory, such as the theory of evolution. Every time a doctor goes on record as "proving" that smoking is not harmful, or a lobbyist scientist goes to congress with hockey-stick graphs that "prove" global warming is fact, or a paid professional expert witness goes on the stand to "prove" something that is clearly false, they damage the name of scientists everywhere.

Of course, the diatribes of the creationists have damaged the ability of many people to believe that the Creator is intelligent and loving as well.

To get back on topic: for people to be able to change their beliefs, they must first recognize that each belief is a choice. If I believe something because I choose to believe it, then I have freedom of choice, and freedom to change my thinking. If I believe something because "...God said it and it's the Truth..." then I have no choice but to defend the belief that I already have. See my sig for a summary of this position.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Veritass I essentially agree with you, Id just go a little further and say that we make things real by believing in them. Reality is based on belief, not the other way around.

 

[warpus]

I dont think anyone builds a belief system based on speculation, but on the percieved 'facts' of their faith. To me, speculation is what my thread was about, in other words: "Lets speculate about precognition." Faith claims to have answers, speculation merely asks questions.

Thing is that speculation by itself won't get us anywhere. You speculate, you run a couple tests, you see that your speculation doesn't fit the facts, you speculate some more, run a couple more tests, you see that your new idea does fit the facts, you invite others to attempt to prove your speculation wrong, they can't, your idea becomes fact... at least temporarily.

Now that makes sense.

But speculation on its own? That can't get us anywhere.

 

[warpus]

Veritass I essentially agree with you, Id just go a little further and say that we make things real by believing in them. Reality is based on belief, not the other way around.

So in your opinion Santa Claus is reality?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Thing is that speculation by itself won't get us anywhere. You speculate, you run a couple tests, you see that your speculation doesn't fit the facts, you speculate some more, run a couple more tests, you see that your new idea does fit the facts, you invite others to attempt to prove your speculation wrong, they can't, your idea becomes fact... at least temporarily.

Now that makes sense.

But speculation on its own? That can't get us anywhere.

The Ancient Greeks got pretty far on speculation alone All Im saying is that everything begins with a question. You dont wake up one morning on the Moon, in a lander, and then based on that, conclude that travel to the Moon is possible. It begins with a simple question: "Can men go to the Moon?"

 

[Veritass]

Veritass I essentially agree with you, Id just go a little further and say that we make things real by believing in them. Reality is based on belief, not the other way around.

You are preaching to the choir on that one, Bozo.

As far as Santa Claus being a reality, of course he is. As real as Don Quixote, Sherlock Holmes, and Noah. Even more real, because as father of the household, I get to be Santa Claus every year.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

So in your opinion Santa Claus is reality?

To me and you, no. To a seven year old trying to stay awake all night on Christmas Eve, yes.

 

[Masquerouge]

What usually happens is that you'll learn that someone you admire and respect do not share your cherished beliefs, and this will be the eye-opener.