Belief changes

[Left]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

 

[Rajni]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

My mind has never been changed through debate, but rather through a more spontaneous discovery. Debates provide food for thought, but I think it's during the quiet moments when we're not letting the ego defend our positions that the light shines in. During quite, more contemplative moments.

Everything I currently believe came from research and various "Ah-hah!" moments, away from the debate battlegrounds.


-

 

[fulgoreakuma]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

God is truth, he is reality, he is factual information. There is no such thing as better facts, there is only facts. What you are thinking of is better opinions. And as imperfect beings, sometimes we can never be truly certain about certain things, so opinions is all we have.
If the information presented has been properly evaluated as being superior, then you will be more of a godly man in believing it. God is reality, and facts are reality.
Just recognize that you can't be certain about everything, nor do you need to be. The reason Jesus made his sacrifice is to pay for our sins. As long as your reason for believing in things is to make you happier, then don't worry yourself over it to much. Jesus has already payed for your sins.

 

[AvgJoe]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

I can't make that assumption, "God doesn't actually tell us what to believe", because He does tell us what to believe in His word, the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Amplified Version) comes to mind,

16) All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; 17) so that the man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

 

[Left]

Let me rephrase that to what I meant, then. "Assuming God doesn't come right out and tell us through His actual voice..."

 

[Strivax]

I'm a 'believer' in the idea that, rather than a system of beliefs rationally based on solid foundations, we have instead 'webs of belief', different beliefs all supporting and integrating with each other, or not. The whole of the web forms our world view. And, the natural tendency is to accept propositions that fit our world view, and reject propositions that don't. In this way, we try to build a thought model of the way the universe is, a consistent, coherent, comprehensive set of beliefs that help us make the decisions we need to make in order to interact effectively with the world of facts, aka, reality.

This is why changing beliefs, in terms of a complete paradigm shift, such as a total change of politics or religion hardly ever happens. Each belief is assisted and supported by several others, maybe, many others. In order to change one belief, you may have to change each supporting belief, and, of course, they all have supporting beliefs than need to be tackled, and so on. Net result: built in conservation of belief systems.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Left]

I'm a 'believer' in the idea that, rather than a system of beliefs rationally based on solid foundations, we have instead 'webs of belief', different beliefs all supporting and integrating with each other, or not. The whole of the web forms our world view. And, the natural tendency is to accept propositions that fit our world view, and reject propositions that don't. In this way, we try to build a thought model of the way the universe is, a consistent, coherent, comprehensive set of beliefs that help us make the decisions we need to make in order to interact effectively with the world of facts, aka, reality.

This is why changing beliefs, in terms of a complete paradigm shift, such as a total change of politics or religion hardly ever happens. Each belief is assisted and supported by several others, maybe, many others. In order to change one belief, you may have to change each supporting belief, and, of course, they all have supporting beliefs than need to be tackled, and so on. Net result: built in conservation of belief systems.

Best wishes, Strivax.

So when we tackle someone's web of beliefs, we should tell them about our whole web so as not to be rude and just destroy their beliefs with nothing to turn to?

I might agree with that, in some situations.

 

[Strivax]

So when we tackle someone's web of beliefs, we should tell them about our whole web so as not to be rude and just destroy their beliefs with nothing to turn to?

I might agree with that, in some situations.

Probably. The best way to do that is a book, of course, but you have to provide people an entertaining reason to read it.

And, I can only speak for myself, but I have some experience, and changed paradigms twice; once from a fiercely conservative voter to a left-leaning liberal green one, and once from staunch atheist to a Christian. And in both cases, although I already knew about 'the opposition', there had to be an incentive to change; in one instance, a girl I loved, in the other, the love I had for (my conception of) God. Without such an incentive, I think we are far more likely to defend our own position to the last grenade and bullet (sometimes, literally) than take on board someone else's, however much we know about their world view, or they ours.

So, I guess if you are going around with a mission to convert or evangelise, the best way is to get those pesky conservatives/atheists to fall in love with you!

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[W2L]

All debate has done for me is wreck my faith. I do change myself though. The scriptures guide me. I don't follow any preachers or church however, but i do seek Christians who know the value of liberty. Thats the truth as i see it. Liberty upholds me as i walk through this world of division and chaos. Let the world be divided if its wants, i will walk in the sweet breeze of liberty.

 

[ananda]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

My beliefs change when I am presented with facts which better explain the world as I personally and directly experience it, in comparison with my previous beliefs.

Along those lines, one major change for me has been my conversion to Buddhism from Christianity.

 

[bhsmte]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

It all depends on the person and how tightly they hold their present belief. I was a Christian for most of my life and accumulated knowledge that caused me to relook at my beliefs and change them. Typically, we all resist changing our beliefs to some degree, but if a belief is very critical to one's personal psyche, they are more prone to protect the belief at all costs. For some, it is too painful to acknowledge their belief is wrong, even when exposed to significant evidence it could be wrong. This is when you see cognitive dissonance; denial, confirmation bias and needing to demonize the evidence that threatens their belief. For some folks, when it becomes too painful to keep denying well evidenced reality, they will adapt their belief and or let it go altogether.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think change of religious belief - scientifically - is a bifurcation point. When a system, afaik, suddenly changes behaviour (like waking up from sleep, or a car breaking down, losing ones job, or ice melting etc) its described as a bifurcation.

Religion isn't a belief like "its raining or not" which can change with the evidence, and change with the weather. Rather its a human modality, a whole way of perceiving and being.

Say you're a man in a happy trusting marriage. "Your wife is cheating on you" is difficult to take just like that. Its a life changing scenario. Likewise, there is emotional investment etc in ones religious attitude. Its results in a whole new set of habits and attitudes etc. Its a bifurcation point, a "game-changer", not an everyday affair.

When the Apostle Paul converted, it changed his life.

So, religious belief is not a "propositional attitude". A yes or no to a mere statement. Its an "existential attitude". A yes or no to a whole way of being.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Many will never change their beliefs...for a couple reasons.

1) People are often "dug in" on their religious views that they were taught as a child, it's become such a part of their life that switching would seem foreign to them. It's no coincidence that, on a worldwide basis, 88% of people stick with the same religion as their parents, and that the concentrations of religious views are very compartmentalized by region of globe. If everyone was really being presented with all the options, and being allowed to freely draw their own conclusions, what are the odds that high of a percentage would pick the same as their parents? And even more than that, what are the odds that it would break out so neatly in such a way that all of the people who thought about it and decided Hinduism is true just happened to mostly live in the area of India, and all of the people who thought about it and came up with the notion that Islam is true just happened to be in the Middle East, etc...

If you think about it, if we had a scenario were we have 4 states (let's call them A, B, C, and D for simplicity's sake), and we have 4 religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism)... If we came up with the idea that "we're going to present all children with all 4 versions of the story, and let them pick which one they feel is the most accurate & true", and we came back in a year, and almost all of the kids picked the same ones their parents picked, and each of the four religions happened to be almost entirely compartmentalized in the 4 regions, would we think that's a natural or expected outcome? ...or would it be safe to say that those sort of lopsided results were largely the result of influence and indoctrination?


2) The early founders of many religions did a good job of anticipating what the objections to their religion would be in the future, and specifically wrote passages to preventatively try to address them. For example, many of early writers probably could foresee that science would end up disproving some of the things they'd been teaching down the road somewhere, so they made sure to put in a "safety net" with verses about how you should "be cautious of "Mans' wisdom" and only trust "God's wisdom" and why if there are things that Man is teaching that seem right, it could just be deception and you need to suspend judgment until you die and then God can explain it to you"

That's why even in debates where there are mountains of scientific evidence that should sway anyone, people who are very devoted to their religion can easily write it off as a test of their faith, or "mans' sinful nature trying to deceive them".

 

[Strivax]

The early founders of many religions did a good job of anticipating what the objections to their religion would be in the future, and specifically wrote passages to preventatively try to address them...

I think your idea that religions try to 'inoculate' their adherents from other belief systems is entirely accurate. Certainly, when I read passages that insist people prefer God's wisdom to man's wisdom, I tend to ignore the instruction. Firstly, it is not clear to me whether this advice is God's wisdom or man's wisdom. Because, secondly, if I was trying to kick-start a religion, that is precisely what I would say. Thirdly, all wisdom is wisdom, whether it be man's or God's, and any injunction that would limit our access to any of it in any way deserves our deep suspicion, I think. And finally, this advice is never fully followed, even by those that promote it, or they would all sit in darkness, fervently praying 'let there be light' instead of flicking a switch on the wall. If man's wisdom is good enough for secular matters, why should it be somehow deficient in theological matters?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Rajni]

If man's wisdom is good enough for secular matters, why should it be somehow deficient in theological matters?

Good point. There has to be at least some overlap between the two, or else how can we ever relate to God.

In my own experience, belief changes can be hindered by fear, especially if one's theology threatens unending, unrelenting postmortem misery for changing. That right there can block new information from coming in, and understandably so.

-

 

[ViaCrucis]

Assuming God doesn't actually tell us what to believe... how do we know when it is time to change our beliefs?

Say you are debating with someone and you lose the debate. You have to figure out whether you lost because the person was a better debater, in which case it's silly to change your beliefs, or because the other side has better facts. If the latter, it presents a problem...

Should we change our beliefs upon being presented with better facts? When is it okay to? When is it not okay to?

If I insist that black is white, and someone shows me that black is not white, but black; and if I recognize this as the case but continue to insist that black is white then I'm being delusional.

We should absolutely change our beliefs to conform with reality. To not do so is madness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strivax]

Good point. There has to be at least some overlap between the two, or else how can we ever relate to God.

Indeed, I would not like to sustain a position that insisted any man, or all men collectively, know as much as God, or are as wise as He. But, from what I can make out, man's wisdom is the best we can do, and the best the authors of scripture could do. And we should not let the ultimate wisdom that is God's, and God's alone, and is best, be the enemy of the good that is man's enlightenment.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Left]

If I insist that black is white, and someone shows me that black is not white, but black; and if I recognize this as the case but continue to insist that black is white then I'm being delusional.

Pardon my french, but isn't that kind of what Creationists do? Or would you argue that Creationism is just a very light black or dark shade of gray?

 

[Strivax]

Pardon my french, but isn't that kind of what Creationists do? Or would you argue that Creationism is just a very light black or dark shade of gray?

Don't let them worry you. The best thing you can do with a Creationist is pat them on the head, say 'There, there', and give them a copy of Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World' or Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', and then move on to someone more interesting.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Left]

Don't let them worry you. The best thing you can do with a Creationist is pat them on the head, say 'There, there', and give them a copy of Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World' or Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', and then move on to someone more interesting.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Haha. That's hilarious because I used to be a Creationist - and don't worry, I take absolutely no offense at all.