The Function Of Belief

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Well Snoopy, what if we were to use it in a Darwinian sense?

As in a theory to account for the appearance of new species

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Possible futures always begin with a single person's full awareness in present moments of experiences.

The turning of a singular experience into a shared community experience in the future is the engine of our progress, and thus, evolutionary.

Reaching full awareness in as many present moments as possible is the trick.

flow....

You know flow, there's a lot to be said for being an OF if this is what you can bring forth.

Gassho.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Whether it is belief in religion, science we still operate from a mental construct usually so well defined, so clear in our perception that we could not imagine anything else.

Thomas Kuhn, anyone?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by earl

Actually I think it is nearly impossible for humans not to hold any beliefs as regards metaphysical issues, if that's what you're getting at Paladin. A true "agnostic" in the broadest sense of that term would be someone fully comfortable with "maybe so/maybe not" when confronting a particular belief system. Yet, if one is honest about such, most folks who might define their positions "agnostically"-i.e., stating they hold no beliefs whatsoever-when encountering a belief system that doesn't actually jive with them will undoubtedly have an inward reaction suggestive of how they may however amorphously hold a belief as it will be "hidden" within the inward reaction which may be screaming, "you're out of your freaking mind." earl

It's certainly a moment to moment thing earl. And yes, I think you're out of your freaking mind.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

If you dont mind I will answer the question on an evolutionary basis.

.....


Its high time we dumped the superstitions and evolved into a new race. Homo Superstitious did us proud, but its time to move on.

Tao

I agree that over thousands of years a sense of fear, curiosity and wonderment will have caused us to ponder the Big Questions and that this will have intertwined with cultural, societal and political developments. We are indeed tied to the dawn of our race because, as a species we have only been around for a few moments (in geological time). I also agree that superstitions that were once helpful in some way (perhaps psychologically) (or at worst irrelevant) may now be dangerous (or at least holding us back).

But we can’t “evolve” overnight, modern man is only modern on the surface, I think. The danger in a Dawkins-type approach to me (which I think is where you’re coming from?) is that we might, just might, be trying to throw a very important baby out that’s somewhere in the bath water. And if we do, and it’s a mistake, what would the consequences of that be?

s.

[Paladin]

You see what is amazing is that we have this capacity, are predisposed to forming an entire story to explain that which is. Some stories are religious in nature, others while being secular are defended with the same veracity as those who are religious. Even beliefs about who we are, what we like and dislike, what our limitations are and should be. Our entire lives are lived out from mental constructs.
Snoopy mentions wonderment, curiosity and fear. Didn't Rumi once advise us to "Sell our cleverness and purchase bewilderment"?

SG points out that believing is a verb. Yes indeed and in that sense there is a purpose. After all I need to believe that the rules of physics exist before I commit to troubleshooting an electrical or mechanical problem in a machine. I need to believe that I can push my physical boundaries when I run or work out. But do we really need that tendency to form a story to insulate us from what is? Isn't it really just a psychological security blanket?
To reduce what we are talking about here to mere idolatry marginalizes the import of the behavior.

I have nothing personally against belief, or beliefs but there seems nothing in them that engages one in a relationship to actuality. No matter what ism, theory or philosophy one holds up as map and model of actuality, more than likely it is only another story.

And by holding these stories so dear so precious that we would kill rather than give them up, are we missing something vital?
So that being said, how would this kind of behavior serve us as a species?

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Snoopy,

Evolutionary changes do not happen fast in a static environment. Tumultuous times force the big changes. With global warming's symptoms exceeding the climate modellers worst case scenarios we may be entering such a time.....like it or not. Do we need ancient superstition to survive this? Or do we need to draw on what makes sapiens truly unique.....our intellect, logic and ingenuity?

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So that being said, how would this kind of behavior serve us as a species?

In purely simple terms it is that cut-throat heartless dynamic called survival of the fittest. The divisions that are constructed between belief systems serve toward social inclusion or exclusion and define the tribe you will compete for resources with and those you will compete against. We live in a global village now, but resources are still limited. Religions serve as a foundation, focus for a fundamental drive toward survival. But we have evolved technologically to the point of mutually assured destruction and so this ancient survival trait has now become counter-productive. Admittedly religion is not the only thing we use to define our social identity. But it is the biggest and because of its irrational claim to higher authority the most dangerous.

Tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Snoopy mentions wonderment, curiosity and fear. Didn't Rumi once advise us to "Sell our cleverness and purchase bewilderment"?

Is that why some of us are broke?

But you make good points. Perhaps constructs and stories enable us to "get on with our lives" with a measure of certainty and free up our minds by "trusting" the world to behave in predictable ways. What we need to do is clean the dust off the mirror.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Snoopy,

Evolutionary changes do not happen fast in a static environment. Tumultuous times force the big changes. With global warming's symptoms exceeding the climate modellers worst case scenarios we may be entering such a time.....like it or not. Do we need ancient superstition to survive this? Or do we need to draw on what makes sapiens truly unique.....our intellect, logic and ingenuity?

Tao

Yes we do. But one can't will oneself to evolve in the Darwinian sense, either physically or psychologically "overnight."

I don't think we need "ancient superstition" though, but I'm still worried about that baby in the bath water.

s.

[earl]

My point, of course, was that part of the innate nature of humans is the capacity to wonder as was mentioned in this thread which is almost always accompanied by beliefs, however tentative, about that which we wonder. To demonstrate just how "natural" and innate that is all you have to do is listen in on the explanations for how things are very young children give wholly independent of whatever explanations adults may attempt to hand them. They will come up with their own answers (i.e. beliefs) in the face of no adult input. In fact, if humans did not have belief systems by which to judge those held by others those individuals would hold all belief systems equally probable as I was attempting to point out- not a very tenable way to proceed through life. The key, of course, is the tenacity with which a belief is held- is it resistive to contradictory evidence? Another key which harkens to the title of the thread is how a belief functions for us including the question do our beliefs ultimately allow us to live contentedly within our own skin? Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

[seattlegal]

Perhaps this might shed some light of the function of belief:

from etymology online:

belief c.1175, replaced O.E. geleafa, from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).

believe O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater as per Snoopy: Just because people love lies, it doesn't make loving the truth something to be avoided.

This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted.
~C. S. Lewis

One could easily lose one's power of discernment by throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

...Which reminds me of another saying: Lies need to be propped up, but Truth can stand on its own.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

A very valid point. I would never be held down to say that all belief has no merit. The real issue is with separating that which is fanciful, or worse still deliberately manipulative, dogma from that which is part of our essential social and psychological fabric for the survival of our species. Across the board, when we look at those that express they have belief, we do not see their individually arrived at beliefs but an indoctrination into the established system of the region they find themselves in. Proof in itself of the invalidity of all claims of divine sanction. Perhaps it can be claimed that I too have succumbed to social pressures that prevail in my own secular, highly educated and largely science dominated culture. I cannot but be a product of my environment after all. I have to have a belief, to a point, to form a debatable position. But there is a strong case for saying it is time to start to throw out that which is demonstrably fanciful. And that the world is held captive by a couple of old books and the crass interpretations that stem from them is plainly wrong and it is time for rational people to start saying "no more". I do not have any wish to deprive people of their comfort in hard times, nor the expression at the joy of being alive. But however important such things are on an individual level, across cultures religion has become a cancerous problem that needs addressed. And the surgeons scalpel is rationality.

Tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by earl

the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread.

Oh! You've un-reified my baby

s.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by earl

My point, of course, was that part of the innate nature of humans is the capacity to wonder as was mentioned in this thread which is almost always accompanied by beliefs, however tentative, about that which we wonder. To demonstrate just how "natural" and innate that is all you have to do is listen in on the explanations for how things are very young children give wholly independent of whatever explanations adults may attempt to hand them. They will come up with their own answers (i.e. beliefs) in the face of no adult input. In fact, if humans did not have belief systems by which to judge those held by others those individuals would hold all belief systems equally probable as I was attempting to point out- not a very tenable way to proceed through life. The key, of course, is the tenacity with which a belief is held- is it resistive to contradictory evidence? Another key which harkens to the title of the thread is how a belief functions for us including the question do our beliefs ultimately allow us to live contentedly within our own skin? Even if it were possible to move through life with no beliefs whatsoever, (again I have grave doubts about the actual reality of that due to the foregoing), the discussion seemingly has accepted the premise as starting point that holding any type of belief is somehow undesirable when that, of course, has not been established as yet in this thread. have a good one, earl

So why is it necessary to have a belief system merely to begin to inquire as to the nature of actuality? It would seem counterproductive at best.
I don't think there was a consensus in the thread about the desireability of belief, just an open inquiry as to its function. That is why you will see no established value judgement in the thread.

After all if this descended into merely judging good or bad we would be right back into our own personal stories percieving each other from a belief system. If it were possible for a moment to step out of our story then perhaps a meaningful dialog could begin. Children, at their particular developmental level are prone to magical thinking and while charming, isn't really a serious inquiry. there is a pre-trans fallacy at work there that might not lend itself to pushing forward in our understanding.