Believing where we cannot prove

[Bit]

Hi Aj! Because your focus is on society, rather than on individuals, I'm answering your questions that way; also, I'm assuming, given the main thrust of your following posts, that you are basically talking about the religious beliefs which have so strongly influenced laws in the US.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

1) Why hang onto beliefs for which there is no evidence?

They were originally designed to support the power structure. If the power structure changes, the beliefs will fade out of our policies and laws. We've seen this over the centuries. The stranglehold that religious institutions had on the daily lives of the people was lessened as the governments in Europe took more power to themselves. It was foreshadowed by the Roman church's treatment of the Knights Templar after King Stephen threatened to invade Rome with an army big enough to crush any resistance to his will. It was hugely moved forward when King Henry created the Church of England. It continued with Martin Luther's Reformation.

The stranglehold was finally dealt a death blow by the US Revolutionary War and subsequent independence; as far as I know, we pioneered government without church involvement.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

2) Why is it considered *fair* for evidence-based beliefs to be held to a different standard than non-evidentiary beliefs?*

The trouble is that old ideas die hard--and VERY slowly. For five thousand years, government and religion have been joined at the hip; it has seemed quite natural to continue the habit of governing in accordance with religious ideas even without church members doing the actual governing. So we have today a nation specifically founded to be NON-religious which is actually governed by religious laws. The laws have the weight of tradition behind them now. People accept them without demanding evidence because "that's the way it's always been."

It doesn't occur to most people that it is NOT the way it's always been.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

3) If one subscribes to a non-evidentiary belief is there ANYTHING that could dissuade one from believing it?

Over the course of my lifetime--51 years--this nation has changed in ways that were incomprehensible to my grandparents' generation. As the people have moved away from living by religious ideals, so has the government... even if we have had to drag it kicking and screaming behind us.

Over the course of my lifetime--such a short amount of time!--we've seen these beliefs, among others, officially discarded:

• women and children are rightly the personal property of men
• people of different skin colors may not marry each other
• women must stay with abusive men
• men must support women after they are divorced
• only women are fit to raise, care for, or teach children
• women who are pregnant may not work outside the home
• sex outside marriage is illegal

I'm sure you can think of MANY more; these are just the most obvious.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

4) How does one tell the difference between 'good' non-evidentiary beliefs (say psychic powers) and malign ones (say racism or Pat Robertson's latest utterances).

Why Aj, I'm stunned. One can tell the difference so easily! Which one grants the believer more power? If it strengthens the government's position or if it keeps the Senator in office, then yes, that's the "good" one.

Really, now, for a skeptic you're not very cynical. Leave it to a person of faith to fill in the gap. *cheeky grin*

But then--and I speak seriously here--I don't believe that public figures who either make money or gain power from espousing religious ideals actually BELIEVE what they say. My neighbor might believe it, or the guy down the street from you; any ordinary person might truly believe in religious ideals--but those who use them to make a cushy life for themselves?

Nah. I'm not buying it.