Belief changes

[aristocatt]

To combine what chaela and Strivax both said:
From experience, I have definitely found that I rarely find myself changing my mind in the heat of a debate. I have found on many occasions that after careful introspection of a difficult debate that I had previously, that a number of points brought up were worth further consideration. Often times the first step I take in changing my view on a specific position, is by admitting that the issue is not as black and white as I had previously thought.
Then, after admitting that an issue is more nuanced than I previously thought, I might be inclined to really research the topic. At this point, I have my web of belief...all sorts of complimentary beliefs that make it difficult for me to accept that my original proposition was wrong. Sometimes by simply questioning the validity of one belief, I can open up some of my other beliefs to less forceful positions. In the end, my original position may have shifted completely, and a number of complimentary views I am now no longer as sure about. Or I may have found more compelling evidence to reassert my initial belief.

Or, and even more interesting, I may have found that I can't provide a perfectly coherent set of rules that will fix my web of belief. There may be a belief that is so crucial to who I am that if I simply cast it aside, my world would be in chaos. If I were to treat my system of belief as a system similar to the philosophy of science, I might take a page out of Kuhn's book and call this an instance of a revolutionary belief(revolutionary science). As one individual belief that doesn't happen to sit perfectly in my framework, I can deal with it, but as more and more of them pop up, I may find it more reasonable to completely reorient my thinking than it is to simply ignore them as outliers.

Of course, this is a highly idealized version of how I change my beliefs. The reality is, it's not as rational as this. More of my "how I wish my beliefs would change" compared to "how I change my belief".

 

[bhsmte]

To combine what chaela and Strivax both said:
From experience, I have definitely found that I rarely find myself changing my mind in the heat of a debate. I have found on many occasions that after careful introspection of a difficult debate that I had previously, that a number of points brought up were worth further consideration. Often times the first step I take in changing my view on a specific position, is by admitting that the issue is not as black and white as I had previously thought.
Then, after admitting that an issue is more nuanced than I previously thought, I might be inclined to really research the topic. At this point, I have my web of belief...all sorts of complimentary beliefs that make it difficult for me to accept that my original proposition was wrong. Sometimes by simply questioning the validity of one belief, I can open up some of my other beliefs to less forceful positions. In the end, my original position may have shifted completely, and a number of complimentary views I am now no longer as sure about. Or I may have found more compelling evidence to reassert my initial belief.

Or, and even more interesting, I may have found that I can't provide a perfectly coherent set of rules that will fix my web of belief. There may be a belief that is so crucial to who I am that if I simply cast it aside, my world would be in chaos. If I were to treat my system of belief as a system similar to the philosophy of science, I might take a page out of Kuhn's book and call this an instance of a revolutionary belief(revolutionary science). As one individual belief that doesn't happen to sit perfectly in my framework, I can deal with it, but as more and more of them pop up, I may find it more reasonable to completely reorient my thinking than it is to simply ignore them as outliers.

Of course, this is a highly idealized version of how I change my beliefs. The reality is, it's not as rational as this. More of my "how I wish my beliefs would change" compared to "how I change my belief".

There is no question, that heated debate wont cause people to change their beliefs. In fact, it typically causes folks to engage the defense mechanisms and dig in even further. Again, people alter beliefs, when the pain of needing to let a belief go, is overwhelmed by the internal grief from needing to keep the defense mechanisms always engaged and deny well evidenced reality.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

I used to be a creationist, then I learned better, and my beliefs changed as a consequence. But yes, in order to be a creationist and continue to be a creationist involves either simply not knowing any better, or insisting on being wrong in the face of the mountains of evidence which an old earth, evolution, etc.

Were you under the impression that I was a [young earth] creationist? Because I'm not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Left]

I wasn't under the impression. I wasn't sure. I simply asked.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If people are honest strivers after truth, they will weigh evidence, experience, and ideas in their minds -- and gather enough of all of these from different viewpoints to weigh the options fairly -- and then somewhere inside, you convince yourself. Strongly held beliefs will no doubt take more to overturn than lightly held ones, and it's hard to quantify what it takes to be convinced, but I think it's largely internal. Debates can help as a source of raw material -- getting the evidence and arguments of the other side.

 

[Khalliqa]

Debates are usually verbal fights.. not the proper setting for absorbing information.. Learning requires humility - which allows openness to differing ideas... A fight requires your ego to protect itself.. not surrender..

If you have the ability to keep humble during a fight.. later you will reflect and open to a different view that may have enough merit to change your mind.. otherwise it's useless..

Dialogue.. discussion.. etc.. are better settings.. all participants would be non volatile threats to the ego...

However once your ego is immune to those who threaten it with debates.. that's when your learning accelerates.. but that's another discussion..

 

[faroukfarouk]

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.

-

I do think that we need to take into account the effect of the Word of God, by the Holy Spirit's influence, having a profound effect on one's beliefs.

 

[aristocatt]

I do think that we need to take into account the effect of the Word of God, by the Holy Spirit's influence, having a profound effect on one's beliefs.

I'm not sure I quite understand the implications of this. Maybe you can explain a bit more?
How would changes in ones beliefs be affected by the Word of God? Is there a difference between how an atheist changes a belief and how a theist might, or is this effect ubiquitous?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not sure I quite understand the implications of this. Maybe you can explain a bit more?
How would changes in ones beliefs be affected by the Word of God? Is there a difference between how an atheist changes a belief and how a theist might, or is this effect ubiquitous?

We are all influenced, one way or another.

 

[aristocatt]

Does it affect different people differently then? If so, what might some of the differences be?

 

[Paradoxum]

There's nothing wrong with considering another opinion and changing your mind.

For me it was a discussion, not a debate, but it helped me reconsider and change my opinion.

 

[Earatha]

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 don't think belief is a choice. I think it is an obligate condition that can be influenced by social pressure and information.

During discussions I have changed my mind when presented by good information. I'm not a debater, and when I go into a talk with someone it's in an effort to gain more perspective and reach mutual understanding. I'm not out to convince theists that they're wrong. I don't really care if they believe or not. But I want to understand why they believe. Likewise when I talk with those who have separate political views.

There are two types of belief. Those that can be changed with new evidence are usually not tied to ones view of their self worth or world view. If a belief is central to ones world view or self worth it won't be changed by evidence. That's why I don't try to argue with 9/11 truthers anymore.

 

[Cearbhall]

If people are honest strivers after truth, they will weigh evidence, experience, and ideas in their minds -- and gather enough of all of these from different viewpoints to weigh the options fairly -- and then somewhere inside, you convince yourself. Strongly held beliefs will no doubt take more to overturn than lightly held ones, and it's hard to quantify what it takes to be convinced, but I think it's largely internal. Debates can help as a source of raw material -- getting the evidence and arguments of the other side.

There's a curious sentiment that some people on this website have expressed to me. Apparently, I'm wrong because I don't change my mind after speaking to them about God, or Christianity, or what have it. But what's curious is that I'm somehow also wrong because, as an ex-Christian, I did change my mind in the past.

In other words, certain people will claim that they consider the ability to change one's mind to be the gold standard of intellectual honesty. But they change their tune if a person changes their mind in the "wrong" direction.

 

[Left]

There's a curious sentiment that some people on this website have expressed to me. Apparently, I'm wrong because I don't change my mind after speaking to them about God, or Christianity, or what have it. But what's curious is that I'm somehow also wrong because, as an ex-Christian, I did change my mind in the past.

In other words, certain people will claim that they consider the ability to change one's mind to be the gold standard of intellectual honesty. But they change their tune if a person changes their mind in the "wrong" direction.

True.

 

[bhsmte]

There's a curious sentiment that some people on this website have expressed to me. Apparently, I'm wrong because I don't change my mind after speaking to them about God, or Christianity, or what have it. But what's curious is that I'm somehow also wrong because, as an ex-Christian, I did change my mind in the past.

In other words, certain people will claim that they consider the ability to change one's mind to be the gold standard of intellectual honesty. But they change their tune if a person changes their mind in the "wrong" direction.

This is driven by folks who are threatened by those who disagree with them and the folks that disagree with them, cite logical reasons for why they disagree.

 

[Colter]

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 absolute, eternal truth. Therefore, no mater how far we progress in understanding, there will always be more to learn. I change when better understanding comes to my attention.

 

[Rebecca12]

There's a curious sentiment that some people on this website have expressed to me. Apparently, I'm wrong because I don't change my mind after speaking to them about God, or Christianity, or what have it. But what's curious is that I'm somehow also wrong because, as an ex-Christian, I did change my mind in the past.

In other words, certain people will claim that they consider the ability to change one's mind to be the gold standard of intellectual honesty. But they change their tune if a person changes their mind in the "wrong" direction.

One curious sentiment expressed to me is that simply because I am an atheist I am not trustworthy. Part of intellectual honesty is acting in good faith. Making the assumption that I am a liar or not trustworthy without a factual basis is acting in bad faith.

Another curious sentiment I heard expressed on this forum is that that unless you are a Christian your opinions and feelings do not matter.

I think that the ability to change one's mind is an important factor in acting with intellectual honesty. But it isn't the only factor. Changing one's mind when the evidence indicates you should not change your mind is intellectually dishonest.

 

[JD16]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant,

An Echo chamber feels good as it reaffirms your believes and assures you that you are 'right'
But if what you believe is true, it should welcome any scrutiny and stand up to any line of questioning.
A mathematical equation has no fear of being of being manipulated and if an error has occurred, its plain and obvious to all.

If new info is presented to you and is perfectly rational, yet it makes you uncomfortable and you find yourself resisting it as you you are unable to fit it into your current belief, maybe its time to take a step back and ask yourself why?
Are you conforming to reality? Or are you forcing reality to conform to your believes?

From experience I found an easy way to tell,....If you start with the premise that the conclusion must be true,....more often than not, your defense mechanism has already kicked in.

End of the day, the question is....can you handle the truth? Or would you rather live a lie?

The discomfort of cognitive dissonance can be severe especially when such espouse believes is integral to your lifestyle, and the resolute defense of it is understandable

Regards

 

[Cearbhall]

An Echo chamber feels good as it reaffirms your believes and assures you that you are 'right'
But if what you believe is true, it should welcome any scrutiny and stand up to any line of questioning.
A mathematical equation has no fear of being of being manipulated and if an error has occurred, its plain and obvious to all.

I'm thankful that my high school emphasized the need for critical thinking in everything we did. It was in my freshman year of high school that I realized I needed to tear it all down and see if I reached the same conclusions when I started from square one. I did not.

It was a Catholic high school, so I don't think that was quite their intention, but I'm still thankful.

 

[Khalliqa]

God is absolute, eternal truth. Therefore, no mater how far we progress in understanding, there will always be more to learn. I change when better understanding comes to my attention.

I'd say this statement is true whether one believes the first sentence or not.