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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Bit

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.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

You know, I've tried very hard not to be too cynical because one of the criticisms that skeptics get is that we're so cynical.

You know it's interesting that you should mention the cynicism. I HOPE that most of these folks espousing these things ARE, in fact, cynical because if they're cynically using religion to further their own material ends they can be stopped--hell, they'll stop themselves while not letting their followers *know* what's going on. It's the true believers that bother me. A cynic using anything to get over will not drive the car over the cliff. He might *talk* about driving over the cliff but before the car *actually* gets to the cliff he'll stop and find a good reason not to keep going. The True Believer, however, will keep going and there is no force on Earth that will stop them.

The cynic may *talk* about 'protecting marriage' but he's very unlikely to actually vote to make homosexuality illegal. The true believer, on the other hand, is not only happy to vote to make homosexuality illegal but looks forward to being the instrument of justice himself.

And you *know* that my question of 'how do you tell the 'good' beliefs from the 'bad' beliefs' is my own little koan to encourage people to think about it because--and this might just be my cynicism--it seems to me that we don't take the power of ideas seriously enough.

Cheers
Aj

[Bit]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

And you *know* that my question of 'how do you tell the 'good' beliefs from the 'bad' beliefs' is my own little koan to encourage people to think about it because--and this might just be my cynicism--it seems to me that we don't take the power of ideas seriously enough.

LOL, I would call that analysis, rather than cynicism.

I guess I really am WAY more cynical than you are. I think if the Cynical Leader does a poll that tells him he'll gain approval ratings, he WILL drive the car off the cliff, no matter what the issue might be. And if being seen as the "People's Instrument of Justice" will get her into office, she WILL lead the witch-hunt personally. I don't think any of them would stop short.

Yanno, it's kinda odd balancing cynicism with optimism. Normally I'm a glass-half-full kind of person--and indeed, right now I think the scenarios which scare you will NOT happen--but hooo boy, I don't ever allow myself to be optimistic about government officials or religious leaders.

[Boots13]

Forgive my absence, its been a long work week.

Your opinions and your scientific support for "hanging onto beliefs for which there is no evidence" are a great read. And I cannot explain to you why I am stuck on this, your first question, other than to say either I have a short attention span or I enjoy seeing where you go with my inquiries (both?).

I understand that numbers and research can prove or disprove theory (depending on ones angle). That scientific support is the "real evidence".
But science doesn't control, define, predict, or influence EVERYTHING, does it? Surely not EVERYTHING is logical, symmetrical, or prone to physical order.

At some point in our personal, scientific, mathematic lives, wouldn't one have to have a leap of faith in a belief (or theory) to evolve that instinct?
By the way, your opinion on instinct was interesting in your correlation to flight/fight response to stimuli. But what about singular event, or that nuance that says "it's there" (or not, depending on the angle).

And how do we begin to accept those things which remain undefinable (tangible?) as random events or "nuance" or unpredictable repetition if we have to apply a number (or evidence) to the possibility of its existence?

Surely there must be some area in which your (our) butt is hanging in the wind because of an unsupported, undefined, unproven belief.
And if its not a grounded belief, or instinct, or God; if its not dimension or time continuum, then surely it must be Chaos ! And perhaps chaos is the loophole in ""hanging onto beliefs for which there is no evidence".

[Medusa]

Saw this article on Huffington Post just now and thought it was interesting:

What Scientists Think about Religion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine..._b_611905.html


There was another article directly below this one:
The End of the War Between Religion and Science: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak..._b_620133.html