What Do You Need To Believe? Why?

You are sitting on your sofa, wondering if you need to wash a load of underwear today. You "believe" that you have two more pair of clean underwear left, based on your memory, but you don't have to rely on that belief. You can walk into the bedroom and count what you find in the drawer. Then your decision on whether or not to wash a load can be based on a proven fact, rather than a belief that could be right or wrong. Obviously, that's a better way to make that decision, if you don't want to run out of clean undies.

In general, we cling to beliefs about things that can be neither proven nor disproven. We can't go to God's office and see if he's sitting in his desk chair today, like we can go count underwear in the drawer. We can't rely strictly on facts when it comes to some subjects. No matter how much you prefer to have the facts on everything, they aren't always available, so sometimes you have to go with what you've got, and make the best of it.

But there are plenty of facts out there on many controversial subjects like evolution and global warming. And many people choose to base their views on these subjects based on beliefs, rather than facts. It doesn't appear logical or rational to value beliefs above facts, so there has to be something else at work here. These people must have a strong emotional need to believe certain things, so strong that it motivates them to ignore factual information.

What do you need to believe, so strongly that facts don't matter? And how do you justify this way of thinking to yourself?

How does an ordinary belief become a strong belief? Is it simply due to the passage of time, or encountering others who agree with you? This dynamic seems to be a dominant force in polarizing our society and preventing progressive action.

 

I might not be able to give this a great answer , but I know why I need to believe , because it gives purpose to why I am here , and a goal to move foreward for. I know that there is a reason behind all the horrible things I see everyday , and theres hope for better. It may not be Rational , but thats where Faith comes into play , the ability to believe in something without proof.

 

I think it's actually pretty rational to live by your or our commonly accepted beliefs. Since it seems to me that most things in the universe are ruled by chaos it would not seem comfortable to me to be aware of this while living daily life. It's more practical to accept some of our artificial beliefs that give some order, purpose or hope for our minds.

 

You are so good at putting things into words !!

 

I believe that I have a soul that will be around after my body is dead . After death I will be some where in the astral ,at a place of my choseing . After a time I may chose to renincarnate . I do think there is a God in this some where. As to your used underware in a drawer , well the thought of a ladies underware in a drawer is getting me off . desert rat

 

I do not believe in anything. I need proof of its existence, proof that it works, proof that it can be quantified. Otherwise, GTFO.

 

Evolution doesn't disprove creation and god. in fact, evolution is not even taught fully in universities anymore, natural selection is. but it all started with what scientists are now calling "intelligent design". I studied quite a bit of genetics-based evolution in college. belief is a strong thing. it is foolish to call others fools for what they believe. obviously you believe in something if you believe others to be wrong. i think that acceptance of everyone's beliefs is progression.

 

Belief is an element of perception. In effect we believe to see and see to believe. This element is always present because our apprehension of the world is a simulated arrangement in the mind. That is we do not perceive things directly. When we see an object we record reflected light which is then reassembled as a mental image.

To the person who finds counting of socks to be the preferred method of ascertaining whether clean socks are needed, their belief is that there is something preferable to be apprehended, and further the belief is that we have the capacity to do so. In this instance we most definitely see to believe that we are correct. We believe there is an authoritative arrangement of things and we look for it.

Perception is not knowledge but informed perception can lead to it. That is why we have an education system, a social system. We are given a world model to inform our perceptions, belief.

 

You mean you need to see in order to believe?

 

So how much proof do you need? Just a little or a whole lot?

 

Enough. And, that amount may vary from one thing to another.

 

So it would depend on how much proof it takes to make you a beleiver. Would you trust all sources of this proof?

 

I need to believe that I don't know much of anything with certainty. I need to believe that nothing I know,say or do is original. I do know how my sock situation is tho.

 

See, this is topsy-turvy to me. Because, to me "facts" are still a belief.

I think the core of the scientific method helps me. But, that is not to say that the theories arising out of experiment (repeated experiences) are "facts."

At least to me, "facts" sound immutable. And, theories on the other hand, can be disproven. Indeed, you can go to your drawer and somehow miscount the number of underwears. You could be under the effects of psychadelic drugs and arrive at a "fact" which later proves to be not a fact at all. Or, more mundanely, you could conduct your experiment with a personal prejudice in mind which has gone unnoticed.

To refer to your examples, I believe in evolution not global warming. And, that goes deep into the core of my experience. I have a severe prejudice against politically-correct liberalism, because I am black. And, I have suffered from disguised racism. I am also a city boy, and have seen cities that I adore being destroyed (from my perspective) by environmentalist initiatives (parks, urban renewal, etc.).

So, I am more inclined to look at the evidence against global warming (Ice Age cycles, etc.) than someone who`s had a different experience from mine. And, indeed, both you and I have only read about experiments that were made. We have not gone ourselves and conducted experiments to prove or disprove global warming as objectively as possible (and, I don`t think one can be entirely objective).

Now, as far as evolution, I am much more receptive. Even enthusiastic. I am a second-generation atheist, etc.

So, if there is a belief I adopt is the belief in my own experience. I have no experience of God. But, I do have experience with Christian-derived sexual oppression, for instance. So, I am inclined to favor Evolution.

In the end, it all seems to me like a power-struggle rather than fact vs. belief. Do I consider myself superior to Christers and environmentalist liberals (whom, I believe, are non-theist Christians)? Yes.

Do, I think that what I believe is a generalizable universal, fact? No. I don't even want my truths to be the truth of the rabble. The Christian rabble is beneath my truths. I don`t want them to be my equals, I want them to be my slaves. I don`t want to convert, only 'find' my equals.

I only believe I am more powerful than them. I can kick any Christian or environmentalist ass, that I know. Them atheist city kids are a holy terror.

Might makes right.

 

You say that as if everybody knows why being able to do that is a good thing. The used car dealer on the corner lot would love for me to believe without proof that his cars are in great condition. All the politicians running for office would love for me to believe without proof that they are going to keep all their campaign promises. I've played this game too many times, and lost every time. To me, faith looks more like a character flaw than an ability.

Comfortable? I'm not comfortable with being deluded.

And who has time to go around every day being "aware" of the structure of the universe? I have a job. When people tell me they constantly see "signs from god", I wonder how they find the time to dwell on that so much. Don't they have stuff to do?

Purpose? My purpose in life is to be alive until I die, and get whatever I can out of being alive. That's enough. A fake purpose can send your ego out of control.

I'm not afraid to say that I just don't know a lot of things for sure. I have some opinions, but they could be wrong.

Oh, come on. You know whether you are standing or sitting right now. How could you be wrong about that?

I'm not saying that you can know a lot of stuff 100% for sure. I am saying that I'd rather trust facts and evidence than pure unsubstantiated beliefs. I want the most accurate information I can get. You always have to make some judgment calls about credibility and bias of sources. There's no perfect way to get information about anything. At least people who deal with data and evidence have a chance of being right.

So, if I know the world is round but you think it's flat, and you beat me up, does that somehow change the shape of the world?

I think you're talking about politics now, which is a different thing altogether.

 

No. I'm never a believer. That is my point. A believer takes something on faith. I'm a scientist, I need proof before I will accept something. And, i don't need to trust a source of proof, I need to accept that the proof is valid regardless of the source. If I can find the proof valid, I accept it.

 

To the OP:
I agree with most of what you are saying. However I do not think that people move towards belief in the absence of evidence (as opposed to the more logical choice of remaining agnostic in the absence of evidence) for any deep seated psychological reason (such as a need for comfort). The reason why I do not believe this is because I do not have these deep seated needs, and I have a hard time believing that I am very different from other people.

I think the real reason lies in the fact that most people are simply unable or unwilling to analyze their beliefs rationally, and most people fail to recognize the importance of necessary and sufficient conditions. Humans did not evolve to be terribly rational, and so it is only with great effort (such as studying philosophy diligently) that one can overcome the irrational and superstitious nature of humanity.

I think a perfect example is people's belief in Karma. I suppose it is possible that Karma exists but I have yet to hear a sound argument for it. Every argument for the existence of Karma that I have ever encountered is based on observer bias and sampling errors. "I did something good and then I found 20 dollars, I did something bad then my car broke down, therefor Karma exists." The failure in logic is obvious.

I too am infinitely perplexed as to why people are so afraid of saying "based on the available evidence, I have no idea". But I agree that faith is not a virtue.

 

who can overcome the irrational ? the sage has no reputation .

 

It is probably rooted in the observation that when you are nice to others, some of them reciprocate, perhaps much later on. The concept was projected to an absurd degree of superstitious idealism, without foundation.

It still works on a societal basis, at least most of the time, parallel to the christian Golden Rule.

 

I think the golden rule is one of the best examples that shows believing is not necessarily a character flaw. By the way, isn't it called the golden rule because it appears in all religions?