Jump to content

How We Form Beliefs


romansh

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, possibility said:

I'm happy to take it back to the original question, although I am interested in where thormas is headed with the creator-created discussion, because I think he's missed my point somewhat, as the decay, like the separation of creator and created, is merely perception - it's only 'decay' because of the way we 'believe' the system operates. 

But let's humour Romansh and go back to the original topic...

I once 'believed' that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born into a catholic family........

possibility,

I would be glad to get into the creator/created and decay issue but I too will return to the thread's first purpose.

I also was born into a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools from kindergarten, not just through high school but thru grad school. However, I count myself lucky because, although brought up Catholic, it was never forced on us (it just was what it was) and there was never any fear. I had a friend who was raised by his grandmother and aunt, from the old country, and I discovered years later that he was raised with an incredible amount of what only can be called Catholic superstition - for example, sprinkling holy water around the house. I was not raised this way, at all. I saw my Father take a knee every morning and night before the cross on his bedroom wall but, again, there was never any 'have to' in my family. However, all the kids were intimidated by the monsignor, especially when we went to confession and we got him. You would say, "bless me father for I have sinned and I disobeyed my parents." Now at the tender age of 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, there was no horrible disobedience occurring but he would immediately ask, "don't you love your mommy and daddy?" So, you felt worse leaving then when you entered the confessional, but even this, I later though was just his way (best intentions, perhaps) to get us to consider the effect our actions have or what they might mean. I guess I got him back, though very unintentionally, when I went to confess some 'impure thoughts,' got rattled (after all, given his comment on disobeying, what could it possibly be in this case?) but remembering what commandment it fell under, I said,"bless me Father I have sinned,  I committed six acts of adultery." My parent fell off the chair when I recounted the monsignor's shock :+"

The thing I left K through 12th grade with though was not this or that belief (though we had them and I accepted them, without question), but, for lack of a better way to phrase it, a 'sense' of God. Catholic were not people of the book like the Protestants, so we were spared the biblical literacy (again, we accepted the stories, what we were taught, but the whole literal reading was not so drilled into us so that we/I had no real difficulty shaking it later in life). In college, a Catholic college with a seminary on campus, we were taught by, as luck would have it, some simply brilliant people, not a few of whom were a bit radical. And, my first philosophy class was an introduction to Being: our thinking was turned on its head and people I went to school with (who later became business leaders, Lawyers, Judges, actors, Business Consultants, Social workers, Professors, etc.) all agreed that it was the most radical re-learning we had ever (or have ever) experienced. I had also grown more than a bit bored with Catholic traditions, the liturgy, etc. and so that faded to the back. However, I was taken by philosophy, it fed my curiosity, my wonder and gave me a 'sense' of Being - along side of my 'sense' of God; I majored in philosophy - assuming it would be great on a resume and when applying for positions in the real world :+}.

So I learned philosophy (and logic), its history, its language and continued the study of Being. I later decided to go for a graduate degree in Theology (again Catholic) and found that philosophy was the language often used in theology. And teaching high school (again Catholic), I met kids (mostly, Catholic but also many from other faiths) who had grown tired of what they had been taught but were hungry to know, to understand, to see if there was anything 'to it.' So between my grad studies and my teaching I read my ass off, took new approaches and presented Christianity in a way that kids could 'understand it for the first time.' I also had the unenviable task once, as the Chair of the department, of observing and discussing with a priest/teacher, who I had known as a kid, that his students had no idea what he was talking about. He really liked me :+} Anyway, I taught for 12 years and used grad level books in my classes that were a bit 'different' than the traditional Catholic teachings, in combination with Andrew Greeley's 'The Jesus Myth',' Steinbeck's 'East of Eden' and one of the 'deepest' children's books ever written: 'The Velveteen Rabbit.' I only left after I married a teacher and decided if we ever wanted to have kids and be able to afford a house - one of us had to make money, plus I wanted to test myself (and have a new adventure). So I entered the business world, eventually starting my own business with clients in the Fortune 100 - a philosopher conferring with senior executives; it was and is fun. But I never stopped reading or writing or attending seminars and discovered more and more brilliant men and women who thought seriously on Christian theology. I question everything, never lost my sense of God and gained the opportunity, the language and the resource to consider Christianity anew. I am not a practicing Catholic but I am a Christian as understood by the two (really one) great commandments and by the understanding that the man Jesus (man 'become' God, not God become man), was (is) important. Jesus had an insight into "God" (elaborated on - sometimes brilliantly, other times, not so much - by others in the tradition) that I think is important and can be 'presented again for the first time' to a present generation, so they can decided whether or not it 'speaks' to them and is relevant (or not) to their lives.

So, my formationintroduced to the religious (and the informal) beliefs of my parents, as understood in an earlier age and also understood from the perspective of a child.  Given a 'sense' of God, from the Catholic theistic tradition and my parents. This childhood 'sense' met philosophy and theology (the latter, a tradition of those who have gone before and continue to this day, who thought/think deeply on the same issues) which have given me the opportunity to consider God and Being in a contemporary way that articulates the 'sense of God' that was always there.

And, as mentioned previously, this is belief.

 

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it sounds silly at all, Paul. I still feel the occasional urge to 'talk to God', before reminding myself that I no longer believe there is anyone listening.

 

Romansh, I can relate to that sense of belonging, of community, that encourages us to appear to 'live out' beliefs that are not our own, without consciously thinking "does this fit with what I believe?" When confronted with the conflict on a conscious level, though, it's hard to go back to that disconnect. You feel like you're not being true to yourself - living a lie, almost. But in the moment, it's surprisingly easy to keep what we think or believe from interfering with what we say or do or how we act. I hope she has since found a community, and didn't feel that particular loss too deeply.

We build lots of 'walls' that appear to compartmentalise our conscious awareness of our own beliefs, words and actions - it's what enables people to cheat and lie, I guess. Denial is a big part of this internal sense of disconnect. 

 

The 'fear' I mentioned, Thormas, was not so much a conscious fear of harm, hatred or ostracism, but a need to hold onto the comfort and safety of a solid, known world that made sense - rather than tear down apparent walls that I can't get back. I chose to avoid the risk of losing that sense of connection to my culture and family by closing off any thought of beliefs that might compromise it. I could be conscious of my original beliefs in connection to my family, and conscious of the logic that would ultimately destroy those beliefs - but it was like there was a wall separating them - I couldn't or wouldn't be conscious of both at once.

I am still re-routing the connection to my mother in particular, now that I no longer entertain those beliefs. I occasionally sense the gap in our relationship where that connection used to be - but it is what it is, and I know dwelling on that particular area of 'disconnect' will only spoil the connection we do have. Like a wound, it's a little tender in that area on both sides, but I'm making repairs bit by bit - building a new appreciation for each other's sense of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, possibility said:

The 'fear' I mentioned, Thormas, was not so much a conscious fear of harm, hatred or ostracism, but a need to hold onto the comfort and safety of a solid, known world that made sense - rather than tear down apparent walls that I can't get back. I chose to avoid the risk of losing that sense of connection to my culture and family by closing off any thought of beliefs that might compromise it. I could be conscious of my original beliefs in connection to my family, and conscious of the logic that would ultimately destroy those beliefs - but it was like there was a wall separating them - I couldn't or wouldn't be conscious of both at once.

I am still re-routing the connection to my mother in particular, now that I no longer entertain those beliefs. I occasionally sense the gap in our relationship where that connection used to be - but it is what it is, and I know dwelling on that particular area of 'disconnect' will only spoil the connection we do have. Like a wound, it's a little tender in that area on both sides, but I'm making repairs bit by bit - building a new appreciation for each other's sense of God. 

I understood that was the fear and was trying to get across that fear was not my experience. I found my comfort and safety in my family and all else was just commentary to me. What was coming from the Church, the Catholic school, the monsignor, even the Pope was secondary to family (for me). And that's what my wife and I gave to my daughter (not raised Catholic, not raised in any formal religion system, without the performance of any sacraments): free to be but raise in the 'informal beliefs' and, most importantly, unconditional,  unwavering, ever-present love (which for me is God in man/woman) that builds and is essential to life. 

That said, I get, at least to a degree, the desire and the need to not lose the connection to culture and family that was so much a part of you from the earliest age. The image of the wound is a powerful one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:13 PM, possibility said:

Romansh, I can relate to that sense of belonging, of community, that encourages us to appear to 'live out' beliefs that are not our own, without consciously thinking "does this fit with what I believe?" When confronted with the conflict on a conscious level, though, it's hard to go back to that disconnect. You feel like you're not being true to yourself - living a lie, almost. But in the moment, it's surprisingly easy to keep what we think or believe from interfering with what we say or do or how we act. I hope she has since found a community, and didn't feel that particular loss too deeply.

We build lots of 'walls' that appear to compartmentalise our conscious awareness of our own beliefs, words and actions - it's what enables people to cheat and lie, I guess. Denial is a big part of this internal sense of disconnect. 

My point Possibility … my belief (or more accurately my world view in this case) was at least in part formed by my environment. If there was a sense of belonging it was not conscious. 

Not being true to yourself comes after the fact of realizing one no longer believes in something or another. There is a 'conflict' between your family/church/community when it comes to belief. How each of us deal with it is a different matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 5:21 PM, possibility said:

But let's humour Romansh and go back to the original topic...

I once 'believed' that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born into a catholic family, this particular belief was perceived in my mind as a 'fact' - in much the same way as I also believed that the earth was a spheroid: I 'knew', because I relied on and trusted the data or information I had experienced, because I relied on and trusted the source: my parents, teachers, parish priest, church leaders, and the books, documentaries, etc that I was exposed to. Anyone who said differently was distant enough to be disregarded or distrusted - no reliable source directly challenged either belief, and I never felt the need to search. I was secure in my world.
 
After 12 years of catholic schooling and very little exposure to alternative religious beliefs, it wasn't until I reached university that I had any thought that what I believed might be a 'belief' as opposed to a fact. People I began to care about or learned to trust as a source of information made conflicting - and convincing - arguments, and previous sources were gradually found less reliable or less informed by comparison. But I am non-confrontational by nature (and nurture), so for the most part I avoided processing this conflicting data, and focused only on thinking about or discussing those beliefs that were discussed by my social circle...for twenty years.
 
I believed 'A', received new information, but then avoided the need to investigate, question or wrestle with that new information. In hindsight, I was afraid - I had become very good at avoiding conflict, both inside and out. 'Never discuss religion or politics' worked well for me for many years. I stopped going to church, and my mother, probably afraid to face the possibility that her eldest daughter may have lost the faith, and unable to make a strong argument herself, never pushed the issue. Because I avoided the need to articulate or even think about my religious beliefs, it's hard to say what they were at that stage - because I never had to 'say'. When pressed, my 'belief' would depend on the audience - if I'm being honest.
 
I think fear can play a big part in the formation of our beliefs. I could say that I 'lost' my belief when I stopped going to church, but in truth I simply avoided it. I don't know if we lose a belief until we are asked to 'live out' that belief in word or deed, and find that we can no longer do so. I remember sitting in church a few years ago and starting to mindlessly rattle off the creed, when I realised that I no longer believed the words. It was a jarring experience for me - I remember feeling a distinct sense of loss.

 

Humouring me is always good  ?

If I may prevail … could you provide a 3 or 4 line summary please

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, romansh said:

If I may prevail … could you provide a 3 or 4 line summary please

Sorry, Rom - I don't believe in summaries ^_^

How did I form a belief that Jesus was born of a virgin? By trusting the source (parents, teachers, clergy, books, etc). I had an almost cloistered childhood - 'beliefs' were synonymous with facts.

How did I lose that belief? By holding it up to logic and knowledge. I wouldn't at first - instead I tucked it away unchallenged for years, safeguarded as a connection to my family and culture. 

This is imperfectly simplified, but I think losing a belief is a conscious action to reject information that was previously trusted - it doesn't just happen when you're exposed to accurate and conflicting information. The mind is surprisingly adept at holding conflicting ideas safely apart from each other...one tied to logic and the other to emotion, for instance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
17 hours ago, thormas said:

And, in spite of my repeating this is belief you still demand evidence. Just as you believe that the universe (beyond your perception) exists, I believe that the very possibility of that universe is Being/IS or what some call God.

Firstly I am not demanding evidence …  just hoping in vain.

I believe the Earth is a spheroid floating around the Sun which in turn is in a spiral arm of the Milky Way. I can point to evidence for this belief. Belief and evidence for a belief are not mutually exclusive. 

My supposed belief that the universe exists beyond my perception is closer to faith than belief. As I can see no logical way of testing my supposed belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Firstly I am not demanding evidence …  just hoping in vain.

I believe the Earth is a spheroid floating around the Sun which in turn is in a spiral arm of the Milky Way. I can point to evidence for this belief. Belief and evidence for a belief are not mutually exclusive. 

My supposed belief that the universe exists beyond my perception is closer to faith than belief. As I can see no logical way of testing my supposed belief.

no really , see other thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I am still curious as to how we might form a "belief" without any evidence or rationale for that belief?

That is why I am forced to concede that the universe exists and my perception of it is a reflection, is more faith-like than belief. But moving on that assumption, any beliefs that I might hold, have some evidence or rationale to back them up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think revelations come to people from the least we could say from beyond the conscious mind. Perhaps many of the great inventors received inspiration from just such a place, thing, or ? . Anyway they believed it first and then set out to prove it. That seems to tell me and agrees with my personal experience that evidence is not always needed for belief. There seems to me to be a deep knowing inside us that if we are tuned in, direct knowledge or knowing is present without evidence at that time.

The book of Hebrews said .... " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 

Not just because the book says so but my personal experiences agrees with that definition and it has proven itself in my personal life, at least to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I think revelations come to people from the least we could say from beyond the conscious mind

I am reminded of Kekulé's snake dream (a little apocryphal). Sure, here the unconscious gave Kekulé a hint to how benzene was actually a ring of carbon atoms. Other evidence confirmed that the benzene structure was indeed cyclic. 

I can't think of thing that I 'believe' that I don't have some evidence or rationale for …  or at least I could not readily confabulate.

But I agree people do set out to "prove" a position, and by that I mean find sufficient evidence to be convincing. Kekulé's cyclic benzene would have been an intuitively simple answer to the structure problem for benzene. At what point did it go from an idea to a belief and then to an obvious fact is a semantic issue.

31 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Not just because the book says so but my personal experiences agrees with that definition and it has proven itself in my personal life, at least to me.

This I would count as data rather than evidence. But it is a first step towards evidence … what we need is a statistical study (preferably double blind type),  to see if such a position is supportable or if it is an anecdote.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, romansh said:

(snip)

This I would count as data rather than evidence. But it is a first step towards evidence … what we need is a statistical study (preferably double blind type).

😊 Sorry, this i cannot do. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JosephM said:

😊 Sorry, this i cannot do. 😉

I am not sure how we could tackle it either. 

But as you are almost certainly on board with, many aspects of our anecdotal life are illusory … eg free will. So my recommendation is to add one more thing to our skeptic's list. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am not sure how we could tackle it either. 

But as you are almost certainly on board with, many aspects of our anecdotal life are illusory … eg free will. So my recommendation is to add one more thing to our skeptic's list. :) 

Start by googling psychology of belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am not sure how we could tackle it either. 

But as you are almost certainly on board with, many aspects of our anecdotal life are illusory … eg free will. So my recommendation is to add one more thing to our skeptic's list. :) 

While i am a bit skeptical about things such as exorbitant returns on investments,  free lunches, something for nothing, etc.,  my inherent optimistic attitude on matters that require that which is beyond evidence i can provide, except through personal experiences ,  stays on my belief list until it is  proven no longer of usefulness to me. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Start by googling psychology of belief.

Thanks Burl

I  did that. But I did not take it too seriously as I have no intention of doing that study, but did come across one or two interesting articles.

For example

Here Dr Ralph Lewis looks at several aspects of belief … titles of the sections in his articles.

  • Beliefs as energy saving shortcuts in modeling and predicting the environment
    Seeing is believing 
    Homeostasis – maintaining stability 
    A consistent sense of self, and personal investment in one’s beliefs 
    Science and the excitement of proving ourselves wrong

At the end he comes up with this ditty: Faith is based on belief without evidence, whereas science is based on evidence without belief.

Not sure I quite agree with that ditty, but I would argue science is agnostic, even if scientists are not.

Anyway I must admit I am curious how it is claimed that someone can believe in something with no evidence (not even personal anecdotes) and hold in the same basket as a belief that is backed by evidence or rationale. Even if the rationale or evidence is not perfect.

 

 

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, romansh said:

Thinking of my kitchen chair as red is really useful. And it is in accord with my experience. But … it is illusory.

Being useful and being illusory are not mutually exclusive.

 

Well, it seems to me, nothing is really as it seems. I just prefer having a skeptical list a little shorter than yours at least for the time being. 😉

Some things just may have to be experienced for oneself to understand how one can with a fair amount of certainty believe without the evidence you seek. Or perhaps you do understand? Or at least think you understand? Anyway, it seems to me you won't find the answer in my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other thread "Baby steps" struck a cord. And I think there is a truth to this. 

Again speaking from personal anecdote spending six or seven years in a very secular environment, I slowly assumed an agnostic stance and an active disbelief in formal Christianity. So I inched my way to agnosticism, basically became a reflection of the environment I found myself in. 

But there are times we let in huge beliefs (or let them escape) … especially in times of trauma. Our own potential deaths or perhaps a death of a loved one. 

In discussions like those found on fora, I think Lewis's point could very well be often accurate.

Quote

… when we experience cognitive dissonance, it is easier to resolve this discomfort by doubling down on our existing belief system—ignoring or explaining away the challenging, contradictory information.

While this is true for me as much as anyone else, it's the challenging of beliefs that leads to change. Whether we challenge ourselves or someone does it for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

On the other thread "Baby steps" struck a cord. And I think there is a truth to this. 

Again speaking from personal anecdote spending six or seven years in a very secular environment, I slowly assumed an agnostic stance and an active disbelief in formal Christianity. So I inched my way to agnosticism, basically became a reflection of the environment I found myself in. 

But there are times we let in huge beliefs (or let them escape) … especially in times of trauma. Our own potential deaths or perhaps a death of a loved one. 

In discussions like those found on fora, I think Lewis's point could very well be often accurate.

While this is true for me as much as anyone else, it's the challenging of beliefs that leads to change. Whether we challenge ourselves or someone does it for us.

I like you have found that "it is our challenging of beliefs that leads to change". It does seem more effective to me when we challenge ourselves rather than when someone else does it but that is just me. We all have our own conditioning (genetic and otherwise) to overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JosephM said:

It does seem more effective to me when we challenge ourselves rather than when someone else does it but that is just me.

If this were universally true, we would not need the advice of Matthew 7:3

Human beings are notoriously poor at evaluating themselves. So I don't mind the occasional nudge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romansh said:

If this were universally true, we would not need the advice of Matthew 7:3

Human beings are notoriously poor at evaluating themselves. So I don't mind the occasional nudge.

 

While my experience also seems to indicate human beings are poor at evaluating themselves and see more easily the problems of others, it remains that change is more likely when we challenge ourselves. Opposition  to change is more likely when others challenge us. We as human beings (in general) seem not to be as receptive when others are trying to correct or challenge us. So on the contrary, that is exactly why we need the advice of Mathew 7:3 to keep our focus on our own errors so that change is more likely to occur. 🙂 Perhaps you personally don't mind soo much as others do?

PS Humans in general seem to have a strong need to be right or to win or to think of themselves as better than the other. Perhaps that is why they look so intensely at the perceived flaws and need of correction in others more than themselves.

Edited by JosephM
edited and added PS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2020 at 10:34 AM, JosephM said:

PS Humans in general seem to have a strong need to be right or to win or to think of themselves as better than the other. Perhaps that is why they look so intensely at the perceived flaws and need of correction in others more than themselves.

Possibly

How do we focus on our own errors? At least without testing in the outside world.

While I am well aware of my traits … I have a wife. For example she bought me a mug with …  If I agreed with you we would both be wrong on it.

Having said that people do like to think they are right, but there is a corollary to that, people (at least some), don't like to be wrong and welcome having their position tested, the axioms scrutinized and logic verified. This I think is part of calm and meaningful discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service