Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

[2PhiloVoid]

I say yes. Many people in the forum will accept a statement as being true, not dependent on any evidence presented, but based purely on who made the statement. And it's easy to confirm that. Simply reword a statement on a political position so that it can't be Googled as to the author and ask who agrees with it. There are many forum members who will not answer until they know who said it.

Perhaps, but some of this is an outworking of the typical ways in which many people are situated within a limited sphere of emotional trust. Often, this results in a form of cultic (and sometimes even solipsistic) thinking, to various degrees.

In other words, they will know that the position is, for example, wrong...but will not just hold to the belief that it is right because of who said it. But will actually convince themselves that it is right.

I don't know about this. I'm trying to think of a clear example. Do you have any clear and distinct examples in mind?

I have a difficult time thinking any person will believe a false proposition or idea, all the while realizing it is essentially false. (And I'm not here referring to how scientists differentiate between what they know is a conceptual model from an actual physical phenomenon.)

 

[childeye 2]

There's a difference between entertaining questions and thinking your beliefs are false.

The way I see it, if I or someone else is questioning their beliefs, we're at least considering we could be wrong.

And constantly questioning isn't exactly a productive exercise, since if someone truly engages with it they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist.

I agree equivocating back and forth between absolutes is unproductive, but it doesn't mean there is no fixed point whereby we can navigate. On the contrary it denotes that there is. Thats why your statement is itself circular reasoning. For example, if it were true that we can't discern truth, that would still be the truth.

Light carries information, darkness doesn't. Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless.

Though if they could offer an unproblematic solution to Munchaussen's trilemma, they'd likey win some sort of award, whatever awards there are for philosophy/epistemology.

I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. There is an unproblematic solution. ---> Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false.

See this below is from another post:

We project bias in the absence of proof. The question 'Why?' is eternally regressive. So, without axioms there can be no logic nor mathematics. This is an axiom ---> Something is true. Another axiom --->something is false. True/false is a fundamental dichotomy.

Fact --->What is True precedes a lie in existence because the lie only exists to undermine what is true.. Positive/negative is therefore a cycle of energy. <--- This is important for sound reasoning when discerning positive from negative.

We therefore can conduct "Subjective semantic analysis" applying objectively true dichotomies. ---> Positive prejudice vs. negative prejudice, Trust/distrust, Reasonable/unreasonable. ---> Hence, it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[timothyu]

Summing up the topic

 

[The Righterzpen]

That and the problems of mental breakdown and/or delusional states of mind, which go beyond mere cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, that’s true too; although I wonder how much mental health issues actually leads to cognitive dissonance?

As it seems logical to me that someone of a sound mind would not continue to believe in what would require cognitive dissonance.

Although I see your point as cognitive dissonance can be a “pragmatic choice” considering a scenario such as living in Stalin era Soviet Union. Cognitive dissonance can “serve” as a “go along to get along” such as for example, Gorbachev was a party member; who knew that the “writing was on the wall” and that the Soviet Union was coming down. Thus he did a very public “180” on policy which seems reasonable to me that he’d see it in the best interest of the stability of the society that the collapse not be a free fall spiral to the bottom. Which in that, the policy was “successful” because though things got pretty bad in Russia in the 90’s; they didn’t deteriorate to civil war.

Which much can also be said for the pragmatic cognitive dissonance of the people themselves!

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread. It seems to me there is a certain “inherent blue print” upon the moral conscience of general humanity for the recognition of truth.

Which raises an interesting question about atheistic political systems? Not that I’m denying the atrocities that took place under the ideology of those regimes. Yet the irony that the populations of the communist block countries apparently hadn’t “lost their minds” in the midst of the collapse!

Which has me personally concerned for our country; as the state of mental health among many Americans isn’t good. Physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually; we aren’t well as a society.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The way I see it, if I or someone else is questioning their beliefs, we're at least considering we could be wrong. And constantly questioning isn't exactly a productive exercise, since if someone truly engages with it they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist.

I agree equivocating back and forth between absolutes is unproductive, but it doesn't mean there is no fixed point whereby we can navigate. On the contrary it denotes that there is. Thats why your statement is itself circular reasoning. For example, if it were true that we can't discern truth, that would still be the truth.

Light carries information, darkness doesn't. Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless.

I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. There is an unproblematic solution. ---> Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false. See this below is from another post:

We project bias in the absence of proof. The question 'Why?' is eternally regressive. So, without axioms there can be no logic nor mathematics. This is an axiom ---> Something is true. Another axiom --->something is false. True/false is a fundamental dichotomy.

Fact --->What is True precedes a lie in existence because the lie only exists to undermine what is true.. Positive/negative is therefore a cycle of energy. <--- This is important for sound reasoning when discerning positive from negative.

We therefore can conduct "Subjective semantic analysis" applying objectively true dichotomies. ---> Positive prejudice vs. negative prejudice, Trust/distrust, Reasonable/unreasonable. ---> Hence, it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

Hum…. That’s a fascinating testament to the fact that truth is a real “thing”!

 

[childeye 2]

Hum…. That’s a fascinating testament to the fact that truth is a real “thing”!

Or Real Person/consciousness. It's therefore regarded as an epiphany.

Truth=information=knowledge

This is an objectively true dichotomy ---> Knowledge/ignorance. <--- Objectively, Knowledge precedes ignorance
This is a subjectively true dichotomy ---> ignorance/Knowledge. <--- Subjectively, ignorance precedes Knowledge

Darkness was on the face of the deep and the creation is learning/turning to reflect the Creator.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not just a matter of lying to one's self; it's consciously holding a contradiction....as if it's true! That's impossible, I think.

ETA: Maybe we need an example. This one about the future, which makes it more interesting. Let's say someone believes that the Raiders will both win and not win the Superbowl this season. What is the probability anyone here holds a belief like that? Assuming a probability between 1 - 0, I figure it's very close to 0.

If we take the model of speculative reason and practical reason, then culpable belief occurs when practical reason overrides speculative reason (i.e. when the passions override the intellect).

So someone might benefit greatly if the Raiders win, and therefore they very much want the Raiders to win. They may also know the Raiders are bad and are unlikely to win. Such a person could consistently maintain, "I want them to win but I know they probably won't."

Yet it is incredibly common for someone to say, "I want it to be so, therefore it is so." This person will say, "I want the Raiders to win, therefore they will win," while nevertheless knowing that the Raiders will probably lose. Their practical reason guides them so as to avoid the implicit contradiction, and this can be done in different ways. The most obvious way is to simply not look at the contradiction; simply close one's eyes to the elephant in the room. One can hold X and ~X so long as they don't consider the two under the aspect of the law of non-contradiction. The more subtle thinker will avoid the contradiction by assigning the two speculative conclusions different rational aspects or grounds, often by schizophrenically shifting between different vantage points in order to maintain both beliefs.

An example of the latter would be someone who has two different lenses, with no neutral in-between. The first lens shows the sky to be blue and the second shows the sky to be green. The person can maintain that the sky is blue whenever they want by donning the first lens, and they can maintain that the sky is green whenever they want by donning the second lens. The contention that, "The sky cannot be both blue and green," need not come up for them, and they can simply ignore anyone who confronts them with this inconvenient fact.

This sort of self-deception is incredibly common when it comes to highly emotional and personal issues, such as abortion, rights, Universal Salvation, etc.

 

[zippy2006]

In other words, they will know that the position is, for example, wrong... But will actually convince themselves that it is right.

To believe something to be false is to not-believe it, and therefore this is not possible. The question has to do with one's justifications for one's beliefs, and whether they are intellectually honest. A justification that is not intellectually honest is a justification that is not proportioned to the belief, generally because it is based in emotional grounds and emotional grounds are not adequate for determining what is true.

Many people in the forum will accept a statement as being true, not dependent on any evidence presented, but based purely on who made the statement.

That's called an argument from authority. Everyone does it and it is perfectly rational. The whole notion of "sourcing one's claims" is built upon the validity of such arguments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it's possible to think that something one believes is true is also (in the same way) something that one believes is false (unless we're talking about a paradox, but even paradoxes are not, strictly speaking, contradictions). There are degrees of belief, but generally something that we believe to be true is not also something we believe to be false. What I do think is both possible and desirable is to think that what we believe is true could be false. We are fallible, and if we've been around long enough, we have learned that some of what we used to believe to be true turned out to be false. It just makes good sense to recognize that we could be wrong about other things that we believe are true. There are exceptions of course, e.g. basic maths, but knowing that we could be wrong is part of intellectual maturity, imo.

I generally agree with you here on these points. We each are fallible, and I also think that knowing we could be wrong comes with accepting and adopting a more philosophically inclined awareness, or a scientific outlook, where 'truth' is defined not as a singular, static entity but as as a human speech act where claims, propositions or explanations are asserted in an effort to describe what we think about the fuller Reality we all live in.

Knowing that these claims, propositions or explanations have human limits and are in and of themselves finite in nature should move us to realize that the truths we live by are provisional and always open to possible revision.

The challenge is in encouraging other people to realize that while they hold confidence in certain ideas or propositions, they're not necessarily betraying the implied goals in those ideas or propositions by questioning them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This may touch gently on the theological, but I don't think in the sense the OP was warning against. Anyway, the discussion brought to mind a portion of a letter by President John Adams writing to Jefferson.


The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. ... This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be So certain of any Prophecy, or the fullfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten Us out of our Witts; might Scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to Say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But We Should not believe it. We Should know the contrary.

Had you and I, been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it; but We could not have believed it. The thunders and Lightenings and Earthquakes and the transcendant Splendors and Glories, might have overwhelmed Us with terror and Amazement: but We could not have believed the doctrine.

 

[Fervent]

The way I see it, if I or someone else is questioning their beliefs, we're at least considering we could be wrong.

Entertaining the possibility of being mitaken is not the same as thinking one's beliefs are false.

I agree equivocating back and forth between absolutes is unproductive, but it doesn't mean there is no fixed point whereby we can navigate. On the contrary it denotes that there is. Thats why your statement is itself circular reasoning. For example, if it were true that we can't discern truth, that would still be the truth.

Recognizing the reality that Munchaussen's trilemma remains unsolved does not require circularity. If I were stating there is no solution, it might be. But recognizing it as a live problem with no current solutions is nothing more than surveying the options

Light carries information, darkness doesn't. Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless.

I don't understand what you're saying here, it just seems like a word salad.

I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. There is an unproblematic solution. ---> Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false.

That appears to be nothing more than a dogmatic statement, which is simply one of the 3 problematic solutions.

See this below is from another post:

We project bias in the absence of proof. The question 'Why?' is eternally regressive. So, without axioms there can be no logic nor mathematics. This is an axiom ---> Something is true. Another axiom --->something is false. True/false is a fundamental dichotomy.

Fact --->What is True precedes a lie in existence because the lie only exists to undermine what is true.. Positive/negative is therefore a cycle of energy. <--- This is important for sound reasoning when discerning positive from negative.

We therefore can conduct "Subjective semantic analysis" applying objectively true dichotomies. ---> Positive prejudice vs. negative prejudice, Trust/distrust, Reasonable/unreasonable. ---> Hence, it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

Which is nothing but one of the 3 problematic solutions, the axiomatic approach. Yet as far as I am aware there isn't a single universal self-evident truth that is recognized by all human beings. The only things that can be said to be true are tautological statements, but there is much debate over whether tautologies are able to tell us about the world, or if they only tell us about the relationship between words.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know about this. I'm trying to think of a clear example. Do you have any clear and distinct examples in mind?

Want to know if some people in the forum support gerrymandering? They'll want to know which state is doing it. 'What we do is right. But if you do it it's wrong'.

I have a difficult time thinking any person will believe a false proposition or idea, all the while realizing it is essentially false.

We often convince ourselves that it's not false by rejecting any evidence that contradicts our position. Wander over to any flat earth thread and you'll see umpteen examples of that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Want to know if some people in the forum support gerrymandering? They'll want to know which state is doing it. 'What we do is right. But if you do it it's wrong'.

That does happen.

We often convince ourselves that it's not false by rejecting any evidence that contradicts our position. Wander over to any flat earth thread and you'll see umpteen examples of that.

Oh, I've had my fill of that sort of wandering already. And not just among theists.

 

[Bradskii]

To believe something to be false is to not-believe it, and therefore this is not possible. The question has to do with one's justifications for one's beliefs, and whether they are intellectually honest. A justification that is not intellectually honest is a justification that is not proportioned to the belief, generally because it is based in emotional grounds and emotional grounds are not adequate for determining what is true.

I'd agree with that. If we reject evidence because it doesn't align with our pre determined position then yes, we're not being intellectually honest.

That's called an argument from authority. Everyone does it and it is perfectly rational. The whole notion of "sourcing one's claims" is built upon the validity of such arguments.

If someone has a position on vaccines/climate change/immigration/miracles etc then there's a tendency for them to accept authorities that agree with them and reject those that don't.

 

[childeye 2]

Entertaining the possibility of being mistaken is not the same as thinking one's beliefs are false.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said, my bad. I underscored the key qualifier below

This is what I said:
childeye 2 said:
If I say yes, would you believe me?

Yes, I do think people must question their beliefs on this forum whenever correction is taking place.

Apart from that, I still don't see why entertaining/considering the possibility of being mistaken is not the same as thinking one's beliefs are false. Are you implying a negative connotation of insincerity when you say 'entertaining'?

Recognizing the reality that Munchaussen's trilemma remains unsolved does not require circularity. If I were stating there is no solution, it might be. But recognizing it as a live problem with no current solutions is nothing more than surveying the options.

This was the circular reasoning I was referring to ---> "And constantly questioning isn't exactly a productive exercise, since if someone truly engages with it they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Premise ---> If they engage in the constant questioning, it is not exactly productive because
conclusion ---> they will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything

Premise---> They will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything because
Conclusion ---> they engaged in the constant questioning that is not exactly productive

The Truth is simple. It's the lies that are complex and harder to see through. Hence if we ask 'Why' for the sake of clarity, it's productive. But if we ask 'Why' for the sake of obscurity, it's unproductive.

Clarity/obscurity
Productive/unproductive
Sanity/insanity

I don't understand what you're saying here, it just seems like a word salad.

Okay, my bad. It's really a simple point I'm trying to make ---> Facts of reality are learned and not imagined.

Reality dictates what is factually true and factually meaningful. Facts can and should override convictions based on beliefs. For example, if I stick my hand in boiling water because I believe it will feel good, I will nonetheless experience pain even though I believed otherwise. That is a fact of reality and therefore I did not imagine it. Moreover, it is meaningful to me because I have learned not to stick my hand in boiling water.

Light carries information, darkness doesn't.
Facts can be observed. Observable facts are observed because photons/Light carry information to our eyes about the objects they hit. Our brains then interpret that information into meaningful knowledge. Conversely, we cannot see those same objects in the darkness. So, for example we might run into a table or chair in the darkness that otherwise we would have walked around when the Light was on. But the chair or table don't disappear from reality just because the Light is off. The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

"Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless".

The summation above shows why it's wrong to believe that reality is meaningless, so as to contest the belief that "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

That appears to be nothing more than a dogmatic statement, which is simply one of the 3 problematic solutions.

It's not an opinion; it's an axiom. The same as ---> "Facts of reality are learned and not imagined", and also --->"The truth precedes a lie in existence". <--- Do you see how these two axioms share a commonality?

"Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false". = Whatever is infinitely True existed before whatever is false.

The reason why infinite is being applied is (1) the question "Why" is infinitely regressive (2) somethings are only temporarily true (3) Facts of reality are learned and therefore they exist apart from our ignorance.

Which is nothing but one of the 3 problematic solutions, the axiomatic approach.

The infinite regressive argument is not a solution. Why? Because 'by definition', no one is able to prove that that which exists Eternal, actually exists Eternal. The summation is One must either trust or distrust.

The circular argument is not a solution, because it's a logical fallacy.

That leaves only one possibility, we must have axioms to reason upon for logic to exist.

Yet as far as I am aware there isn't a single universal self-evident truth that is recognized by all human beings.

That doesn't matter since reality dictates what is factually true, not human beings. And it can be observed that Love/compassion is of the highest value in humanity.

The only things that can be said to be true are tautological statements, but there is much debate over whether tautologies are able to tell us about the world, or if they only tell us about the relationship between words.

What we believe to be true will manifests emotions accordingly. And it's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. Sanity/insanity

 

[The Righterzpen]

Or Real Person/conscientiousness. It's therefore regarded as an epiphany.

Truth=information=knowledge

This is an objectively true dichotomy ---> Knowledge/ignorance. <--- Objectively, Knowledge precedes ignorance
This is a subjectively true dichotomy ---> ignorance/Knowledge. <--- Subjectively, ignorance precedes Knowledge

Darkness was on the face of the deep and the creation is learning/turning to reflect the Creator.

I certainly agree with you. I just wasn't aware that "objective true dichotomy" and "subjective true dichotomy" definitions actually existed. And that the term "epiphany" applied. Although I have heard people describe this application thereof in philosophical conversations. I just wasn't aware it had an actual title and definition to it.

Learn something new every day!

Thanks.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I generally agree with you here on these points. We each are fallible, and I also think that knowing we could be wrong comes with accepting and adopting a more philosophically inclined awareness, or a scientific outlook, where 'truth' is defined not as a singular, static entity but as as a human speech act where claims, propositions or explanations are asserted in an effort to describe what we think about the fuller Reality we all live in.

Knowing that these claims, propositions or explanations have human limits and are in and of themselves finite in nature should move us to realize that the truths we live by are provisional and always open to possible revision.

The challenge is in encouraging other people to realize that while they hold confidence in certain ideas or propositions, they're not necessarily betraying the implied goals in those ideas or propositions by questioning them.

The other issue is truth that is beyond our comprehension does exist. (I'm not sure if this is what you are saying here?) But I have seen instances where because some subject shows itself to be revisable; people will claim that absolute truth doesn't exist. Therefore truth is always subjective. (Which can be easily proven wrong in some very real practical terms. I.E. 1+1 never equals 3.

Which of course, to admit incomplete knowledge (I.E. I might be wrong about hypothesis A, B or C) is predicated upon the "belief" that absolute truth does exist.

 

[childeye 2]

I certainly agree with you. I just wasn't aware that "objective true dichotomy" and "subjective true dichotomy" definitions actually existed. And that the term "epiphany" applied. Although I have heard people describe this application thereof in philosophical conversations. I just wasn't aware it had an actual title and definition to it.

Learn something new every day!

Thanks.

My bad, I wrote Person/contentiousness when I meant to write person/consciousness

 

[The Righterzpen]

This may touch gently on the theological, but I don't think in the sense the OP was warning against. Anyway, the discussion brought to mind a portion of a letter by President John Adams writing to Jefferson.


The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. ... This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be So certain of any Prophecy, or the fullfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten Us out of our Witts; might Scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to Say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But We Should not believe it. We Should know the contrary.

Had you and I, been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it; but We could not have believed it. The thunders and Lightenings and Earthquakes and the transcendant Splendors and Glories, might have overwhelmed Us with terror and Amazement: but We could not have believed the doctrine.

Well of course Adam's statement here would presuppose that no human could excel to a knowledge of truth before the authorities of realized truth could declare it. Which begs the reality that of course that knowledge would be out there before humans realize it. (Thus how hypothesis become scientifically reproducible declarations of truth. Someone had to be the first to have a theory to prove.)

Now, is human understanding of truth actually controlled by when Eternity sees fit to reveal it; or was the potential knowledge of the whole of it always there from the beginning? Seems "yes" and "no".

Yet at that, because certain aspects of truth (particularly redemption plan) only come from Eternal revelation, (on account of the finite nature of temporal human corrupted intellectual capacity); it's certainly plausible that Eternity could choose to reveal "advanced knowledge" (of the redemption plan) to a particular individual. As generally these revelations were written down and became a compilation of revealed truth.

But had Eternity done that, in which someone witnessing these things at Sini could have actually "understood and believed the doctrine"? I suppose that's theoretically possible; although the book explained later that an entire generation perished due to disobedience; thus advanced knowledge had not been revealed.

Which presupposes the assumption that certain knowledge is indeed "time line sensitive".

 

[The Righterzpen]

My bad, I wrote Person/contentiousness when I meant to write person/consciousness

I knew what you meant.