The Function Of Belief

[dauer]

I think some level of belief is necessary, as some previous posters in this thread have suggested, in order to make sense of the world. Without making certain assumptions there's nowhere to go. I may be misperceiving, but it seems like some of this thread is about certain kinds of beliefs and other parts of this thread are about belief in general.

In general there are certain things that I think the majority of humanity accepts. If I see a computer in front of me while I'm typing, I don't wonder if it might really be a chicken. I accept that at the very least, this computer is much like other computers and all of these computers have some relationship with the way things really are even if what I'm seeing is extremely filtered and limited. In that regard a common sense belief is I think much to do with what was stated above. I don't think it's possible to make sense of the world at all without certain common sense assumptions.

But there are many types of belief and I think some of them serve different purposes, for example belief about what ought to be. But then the nature of that belief will change its purpose. For example a passive belief in what ought to be may be a source of comfort. An active belief in what ought to be may motivate an individual to take steps to bring about that ought. Both types of beliefs about what ought to be may serve the individual as a type of validation that not only are they correct, but they will win out in the end. This might be contrasted with how someone might be effected by a belief that in the future everyone who shares their beliefs will die out and the rest of the world will realize how wrong the believer's group was. Beliefs along those lines don't, afaik, exist.

That type of ought is a bit larger, but there's also the basic daily ethical ought. I think that can allow someone to feel comfortable and secure in their actions.

Belief in general I think can also be a way to identify with a community or identify against a community.

There are still more types of beliefs: beliefs about group superiority/inferiority, beliefs about societal roles, etc.

--Dauer

edit: Please note that we can only effectively have this conversation by taking on certain beliefs e.g. that it's possible to communicate with other people, that the faculty of reason is a valid approach to this question, etc. You may argue that it's obvious all of these things are true, but I would argue that it still all comes down to one's epistemology.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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.

Isn't that DesCarte? So where would you be? What do you NEED to believe right now? What belief systems can you give up, RIGHT NOW, and which do you need to keep?

Originally Posted by Paladin

I need to believe that I can push my physical boundaries when I run or work out.

Do you? Or is it actually the belief in boundaries that you are letting go of? If it is an actual physical boundary, could you push it?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

Isn't that DesCarte? So where would you be? What do you NEED to believe right now? What belief systems can you give up, RIGHT NOW, and which do you need to keep?

Do you? Or is it actually the belief in boundaries that you are letting go of? If it is an actual physical boundary, could you push it?

Which would give out first, your will or your ligament?

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?

I agree that religious institutions are largely parasitic, and that much of their pathology derives from the power they offer to opportunists. I also think we need to rationally assess the roots and function of religion, but I would not expect that assessment to lead to victory for either reason or belief. I look at religion much as Joseph Campbell presented it, as varied but similar symbol-sets for engaging a shared reality.

The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

Going back to Paladin's statements, the symbol-sets of religion only stand between the believer and reality when they aren't being used correctly. A functioning symbol-set and body of practice provides the believer with powerful tools for engaging and operating within the human condition. Those same symbols can be perverted by charismatics to act as blinders, but what is needed is a thorough housecleaning, not to burn down the house.

[wil]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Which would give out first, your will or your ligament?

Exactly what I was referring to, if you can pass the boundary and not pull, break, damage beyond repair, the boundary was belief. So it wasn't belief to pass the boundary, but belief in the boundary that one had to pass.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wil

Exactly what I was referring to, if you can pass the boundary and not pull, break, damage beyond repair, the boundary was belief. So it wasn't belief to pass the boundary, but belief in the boundary that one had to pass.

Yup, the whole mind/body thingy. I notice this most on long runs and when working to failure with heavy weights. After about seven miles I start talking to myself (ok, you don't have to do this fast--all ya gotta do is make it home )

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?


The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

That would be a good starting place. I have long advocated that all "national service" should become "international service", where one is duty bound to go and live, study and work in another nation.

Tao

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

How would you separate people from their beliefs? Repeat the atrocities of Mao's army? Talk them out of it?

I agree that religious institutions are largely parasitic, and that much of their pathology derives from the power they offer to opportunists. I also think we need to rationally assess the roots and function of religion, but I would not expect that assessment to lead to victory for either reason or belief. I look at religion much as Joseph Campbell presented it, as varied but similar symbol-sets for engaging a shared reality.

The "cure" I'd offer is more an open, interfaith approach, like that advocated by H.H. The Dalai Lama. Encourage people of all faiths to talk to each other with the assumption that their goals are similar. My experience of power-mongers in religious institutions is mainly American Evangelists, but they rely almost exclusively on fear-of-other directed at other faiths and secular society. The cure for fear-of-other is simple: mingle.

Going back to Paladin's statements, the symbol-sets of religion only stand between the believer and reality when they aren't being used correctly. A functioning symbol-set and body of practice provides the believer with powerful tools for engaging and operating within the human condition. Those same symbols can be perverted by charismatics to act as blinders, but what is needed is a thorough housecleaning, not to burn down the house.

O.K., but what you're really talking about here is how to ease ignorant people into reality. That's fine, and it's most important that we all find a way to just get along. But my experience, as an intelligent person who finds it essential to question and examine things carefully, is that while we have to preserve the illusion of metaphysical simplicity for the masses, the reality is in the long term, and in everyone's best interest, superstition isn't something that should be encouraged. We can't forever condone this sort of childishness. At some point the flat earthers have to be marginalized before their petty disagreements based on blind belief wipe us all out.

Chris

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

O.K., but what you're really talking about here is how to ease ignorant people into reality.

Um...no. Dogmatic Rationalism/Materialism ignores a wide swath of the human experience, and any attempt to impose The One, True Answer, be it religious, philosophical or scientific, ignores the variety of human consciousness. If you want to assume everyone is stupid and ought to be like you, go ahead, but that's part of the problem, not the solution. My point is that a new equilibrium needs to be established by consensus, and can't be imposed by anyone. Rather than telling everyone their beliefs are wrong, look for what you have in common, what you each find right and wrong in your own institutions. Encourage people to examine their traditions and institutions more closely, not discard them.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, that sounds real nice. What I'm saying is that not all concepts are of equal value. So long as whackos are marginalized from the institutions of power I don't have a problem with anyone subscribing to anything they please. But that doesn't mean that everyone's sacred cow pies are of equal, or any worth.

Chris

[Paladin]

Why is it important to do anything with others? From what belief do you operate when a simple inquiry into the nature and function of belief becomes something that has to be done to the human race as a whole? Where does this motivation come from?
We, who can hardly care for and control ourselves have no business suggesting what needs to be done with the populace of the planet.
If change needs to happen, I'll give you one guess where it should start.

[China Cat Sunflower]

So, are you suggesting that when people of a particular ideological bent seek control of the institutions of governance and education other people shouldn't oppose and seek to marginalize them? For example, when Christian whacko neo-conservative RWW nuts try to take over our country people who are interested in preserving the constitution and etc. should do nothing? Please, you live in Colorado Springs.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've suggested elsewhere that belief is an integral function of reason. I stand by that. But I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about how we make decisions about things in the absence of a complete set of facts.

Chris

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Why is it important to do anything with others? From what belief do you operate when a simple inquiry into the nature and function of belief becomes something that has to be done to the human race as a whole? Where does this motivation come from?
We, who can hardly care for and control ourselves have no business suggesting what needs to be done with the populace of the planet.
If change needs to happen, I'll give you one guess where it should start.

Hehe, you started it.

Still, I think we're on topic here, asking whether there remains any function for belief. Of course, there's always plenty of work to do at home, "motes and beams" and all that.

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

So, are you suggesting that when people of a particular ideological bent seek control of the institutions of governance and education other people shouldn't oppose and seek to marginalize them? For example, when Christian whacko neo-conservative RWW nuts try to take over our country people who are interested in preserving the constitution and etc. should do nothing? Please, you live in Colorado Springs.

Chris

Opposing others doesn't amount to much if you have no alternatives or solutions. People will take the devil they know every time.