What gives a belief value?

[Ana the Ist]

A thought occurred to me while participating in another thread in the Philosophy section. What gives a belief value? Or, what makes a belief valuable?

In another thread...a poster had presented a short summary of the evidence supporting a scientific theory. He didn't go into any great detail, he just used a very concise and common sense approach to explaining the amount and types of evidence for this particular theory. Another poster then replied by saying "Anyone who believes that must be a dumb-dumb with primitive caveman-like understanding of the world around them. Everyone knows....blah blah blah." (Paraphrasing)

Now, the poster who replied didn't offer any sort of counter-evidence for what he believed... nor did he actually try to explain why the evidence the first poster presented was incorrect. He simply chided the first poster by trying to make it seem that his statement was so far outside the realm of possibility it was inherently stupid.

In my mind, the second poster responded this way as a means of defending a belief he held that was contrary to reality. The evidence the first poster presented showed this...and the reaction of the second poster was a feeble attempt to protect his belief. What I'm wondering is....why? What makes a belief so valuable that it warrants protection from inquiry/reason/truth?

I can't think of any beliefs I hold that I wouldn't immediately abandon in the face of evidence to the contrary....save one. That belief is...truth allows me to make better choices, better decisions, and is a better guide in my life than falsehoods. Other than this, I can't really come up with a belief I would hold or defend in the manner that the second poster did.

If you hold a belief that you feel should be protected at all costs....held in the face of evidence to the contrary....or should not be questioned at all in any way....what is that belief and what gives it such value?

Of course, any comments on the topic are welcome as well.

 

[True Scotsman]

A thought occurred to me while participating in another thread in the Philosophy section. What gives a belief value? Or, what makes a belief valuable?

In another thread...a poster had presented a short summary of the evidence supporting a scientific theory. He didn't go into any great detail, he just used a very concise and common sense approach to explaining the amount and types of evidence for this particular theory. Another poster then replied by saying "Anyone who believes that must be a dumb-dumb with primitive caveman-like understanding of the world around them. Everyone knows....blah blah blah." (Paraphrasing)

Now, the poster who replied didn't offer any sort of counter-evidence for what he believed... nor did he actually try to explain why the evidence the first poster presented was incorrect. He simply chided the first poster by trying to make it seem that his statement was so far outside the realm of possibility it was inherently stupid.

In my mind, the second poster responded this way as a means of defending a belief he held that was contrary to reality. The evidence the first poster presented showed this...and the reaction of the second poster was a feeble attempt to protect his belief. What I'm wondering is....why? What makes a belief so valuable that it warrants protection from inquiry/reason/truth?

I can't think of any beliefs I hold that I wouldn't immediately abandon in the face of evidence to the contrary....save one. That belief is...truth allows me to make better choices, better decisions, and is a better guide in my life than falsehoods. Other than this, I can't really come up with a belief I would hold or defend in the manner that the second poster did.

If you hold a belief that you feel should be protected at all costs....held in the face of evidence to the contrary....or should not be questioned at all in any way....what is that belief and what gives it such value?

Of course, any comments on the topic are welcome as well.

Objectivity.

 

[Colter]

A belief has value if it shapes the mode of living.

 

[Gottservant]

Belief has value via promise, proxy the truth.

If someone doesn't want to give up a belief, it is because that belief shows promise (and they presume perhaps that another does not).

The problem is that many people (whether atheists or otherwise) tend to take the approach that if a belief is not immediately evidently true, it should be abandoned no matter how much promise it has shown, when in fact, it could not have shown any promise at all, unless it was at least useful in the context of the belief that should be believed (instead, if that is the case).

This problem is compounded by the fact that it is not immediately obvious, or even intuitive for example, how to bridge that gap - which is basically what conversation is for.

When things get heated however, it is usually because one or other part thinks they've had enough of the conversation, when they haven't yet actually become friends or at least agreed on something meaningful.

This seems like an impossible problem, until you remember that Jesus offered to go without promise, in order that we could choose between them.

 

[bhsmte]

A thought occurred to me while participating in another thread in the Philosophy section. What gives a belief value? Or, what makes a belief valuable?

In another thread...a poster had presented a short summary of the evidence supporting a scientific theory. He didn't go into any great detail, he just used a very concise and common sense approach to explaining the amount and types of evidence for this particular theory. Another poster then replied by saying "Anyone who believes that must be a dumb-dumb with primitive caveman-like understanding of the world around them. Everyone knows....blah blah blah." (Paraphrasing)

Now, the poster who replied didn't offer any sort of counter-evidence for what he believed... nor did he actually try to explain why the evidence the first poster presented was incorrect. He simply chided the first poster by trying to make it seem that his statement was so far outside the realm of possibility it was inherently stupid.

In my mind, the second poster responded this way as a means of defending a belief he held that was contrary to reality. The evidence the first poster presented showed this...and the reaction of the second poster was a feeble attempt to protect his belief. What I'm wondering is....why? What makes a belief so valuable that it warrants protection from inquiry/reason/truth?

I can't think of any beliefs I hold that I wouldn't immediately abandon in the face of evidence to the contrary....save one. That belief is...truth allows me to make better choices, better decisions, and is a better guide in my life than falsehoods. Other than this, I can't really come up with a belief I would hold or defend in the manner that the second poster did.

If you hold a belief that you feel should be protected at all costs....held in the face of evidence to the contrary....or should not be questioned at all in any way....what is that belief and what gives it such value?

Of course, any comments on the topic are welcome as well.

IMO, beliefs that are without objective verifiable evidence have value, when the belief meets a personal psychological need the person has. In this sense, the belief provides comfort and comforting beliefs are more important to some, then to others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When things get heated however, it is usually because one or other part thinks they've had enough of the conversation, when they haven't yet actually become friends or at least agreed on something meaningful.

Awww...is that why you enjoy conversing on Christian Forums Gott? You'd like to make a friend?

 

[variant]

Things have value when people value them, it is an activity.

 

[Gottservant]

Awww...is that why you enjoy conversing on Christian Forums Gott? You'd like to make a friend?

Presumption is the height of ignorance, is that how you broker a relationship?

Really?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Presumption is the height of ignorance, is that how you broker a relationship?

Really?

I based the question on your statement.... not presumption. Judging from your response, it's not hard to see why your conversations end how they do.

 

[Gottservant]

I based the question on your statement.... not presumption. Judging from your response, it's not hard to see why your conversations end how they do.

Thankyou but forget it, whatever friendship you thought you were offering, you could have left judgment of whether my implied friendships end at a point at which meaningful relationships were no longer relevant, but you decided to suggest by implication that it was some sort of problem for me.

For the record, your comments have nothing to do with the thread at this point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Things have value when people value them, it is an activity.

Well sure, I think that's a given. What I was suggesting though, is that when one is so willing to dismiss evidence/reality to preserve a belief....perhaps the reason is entirely emotional.

So the question alludes to (at least i thought it did) what does one derived emotionally from a belief that they can value it to the point of protecting it against reality?

It's not even restricted to belief in god really....I think a lot of abusive relationships have similar thinking. For example, the abused female who clutches to a belief that her significant other will change in the face of overwhelming evidence that he won't.

 

[variant]

Well sure, I think that's a given. What I was suggesting though, is that when one is so willing to dismiss evidence/reality to preserve a belief....perhaps the reason is entirely emotional.

So the question alludes to (at least i thought it did) what does one derived emotionally from a belief that they can value it to the point of protecting it against reality?

It's not even restricted to belief in god really....I think a lot of abusive relationships have similar thinking. For example, the abused female who clutches to a belief that her significant other will change in the face of overwhelming evidence that he won't.

Reality sucks sometimes.

The world is full of horrors and injustice.

Of course people are often going to protect the beliefs that give them hope, solace and meaning.

I have a very rich fantasy life as well, I'm just not delusional about it.

 

[Gottservant]

Perhaps an entirely emotional reason is legitimate because a reality of zero belief is never fact?

Consider that?

 

[quatona]

A thought occurred to me while participating in another thread in the Philosophy section. What gives a belief value? Or, what makes a belief valuable?

Generally speaking, a belief has value to me when incorporating it into my world view makes my reality more plausible, more workable.
Then again, my reality itself is already shaped by core beliefs (which I am possibly not even aware of).

IOW I have an inner map (my reality) that guides me through life, and has done so for decades in a sufficiently reliable way. Sometimes - with additional insights - I have to make minor changes to this map, sometimes the required changes are more thorough (and can be quite painful in that they require me to acknowledge that a lot paths I went - based on this map - were pointless, etc.).
Worst case scenario: Incoming information would require me to consider my map entirely worthless, to throw it in the dust bin altogether. This is a very threatening scenario, because it would leave me without any guidance, without any orientation; my entire system would break down.

This is probably the scenario in which I´d likely counter every argument by pointing to my inner map ("common sense", "everyone knows", "it is self-evident, that..." or something to that effect). Of course, I would not be aware of what I am doing.

In another thread...a poster had presented a short summary of the evidence supporting a scientific theory. He didn't go into any great detail, he just used a very concise and common sense approach to explaining the amount and types of evidence for this particular theory. Another poster then replied by saying "Anyone who believes that must be a dumb-dumb with primitive caveman-like understanding of the world around them. Everyone knows....blah blah blah." (Paraphrasing)

Now, the poster who replied didn't offer any sort of counter-evidence for what he believed... nor did he actually try to explain why the evidence the first poster presented was incorrect. He simply chided the first poster by trying to make it seem that his statement was so far outside the realm of possibility it was inherently stupid.

Chances are that accepting the argument of the other poster would have made his inner map useless (or that he sensed that the implications following from accepting the argument would eventually threaten the worth of his inner map).

In my mind, the second poster responded this way as a means of defending a belief he held that was contrary to reality.

Well, (objective) "reality" is a very delicate concept to operate with.
We usually don´t have problems with accepting information of the "objective kind" (i.e. raw data, if you will), simply because they are meaningless (until we interprete them, relate to them, give them meaning or significance or derive implications from them - at which point they have ceased to be objective raw data).

And another thing: Even though his behaviour points to the fact that his inner map was directly or indirectly threatened, concluding that therefore the belief he held was "contrary to reality" is rashed: there may well be rational arguments for his position - he may just not have known them.

The evidence the first poster presented showed this...and the reaction of the second poster was a feeble attempt to protect his belief.

Indeed - it allows for the conclusion that the worth and usefulness of his map was threatened to a degree that struck him as intolerably destructive to his system.
It does not, though, allow for the conclusion that his system is wrong and the rejected information was correct.

What I'm wondering is....why? What makes a belief so valuable that it warrants protection from inquiry/reason/truth?

That´s what I have tried to explain above.

I can't think of any beliefs I hold that I wouldn't immediately abandon in the face of evidence to the contrary....save one. That belief is...truth allows me to make better choices, better decisions, and is a better guide in my life than falsehoods. Other than this, I can't really come up with a belief I would hold or defend in the manner that the second poster did.

So you yourself have such a belief that is so essential to your thinking and has shaped your inner map so thoroughly you´d defend it at all costs. Can´t you extrapolate from there?

If you hold a belief that you feel should be protected at all costs....held in the face of evidence to the contrary....or should not be questioned at all in any way....what is that belief and what gives it such value?

I think the beliefs that have shaped my inner map (and abandoning which would therefore threaten my entire system) are not of the kind that can be threatened by objective information. Which seems to be the case with all beliefs that fall more on the metaphysical side.
It seems to me that your core belief ("truth allows me to make better choices, better decisions, and is a better guide in my life than falsehoods") is of that kind, as well. It protects itself against being threatened by objective information or raw data by virtue of employing subjective keywords ("better", "better guide").

 

[lesliedellow]

I can't think of any beliefs I hold that I wouldn't immediately abandon in the face of evidence to the contrary....save one.

If you were presented with strong evidence that somebody close to you had been a serial killer before you met them, I am pretty sure you would do everything you could to avoid having to believe that evidence.

The same goes for a scientist with a strong emotional investment in a theory he had spent years developing, but now looking increasingly unlikely to be true.

The naivete of atheists who think they are dispassionate logic engines never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Gottservant]

Generally speaking, a belief has value to me when incorporating it into my world view makes my reality more plausible, more workable.
Then again, my reality itself is already shaped by core beliefs (which I am possibly not even aware of).

IOW I have an inner map (my reality) that guides me through life, [...]

In other words you may annotate the map, but you will not throw the map away because someone says "I don't want your map, I want a map to a moon made of cheese".

I think that's fundamentally smart and ultimately credible.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

beliefs have value if they heplp the organism survive, ie. survival value of a
behavioural, in this case an internal behavior, adaptation. But to make a difference it must either be comforting (etc) and affect the horemone systems, or directly affect behavior like the belief "my kitchen stove is still on!!" All other beliefs have value I suppose, but in the long run it is usually those that help us as organisms which prevail. A sad fact nowadays is that we are taught many such beliefs in school, but they are often of more use in preparing the graduate rather than preparing people for life, maybe?

 

[quatona]

Join Date: 15th May 2005
Posts: 28,767
Blessings: 48,431,164 [Check]
My Mood

Reps: 178,427,558,658,324,224 (power: 178,427,558,658,362)

Originally Posted by Gottservant

In other words you may annotate the map, but you will not throw the map away because someone says "I don't want your map, I want a map to a moon made of cheese".
​

Actually, I don´t expect or desire anyone to "want my map", in the first place.
If your map displays a moon made of cheese and it works for you, that is perfectly fine with me.
I don´t think of different inner maps being in competition, necessarily.

I think that's fundamentally smart and ultimately credible.
​

Well, the way you paraphrased what I had said tells me that you haven´t understood what I meant to say. Maybe your inner map doesn´t allow for it?

 

[dysert]

I think a belief has value if it's true. I can't think of a belief I hold that I'd fight for, though. If someone challenges a belief I hold, I may debate it a bit, but then I'd likely do a "whatever" and let the challenge drop. Only I can establish my belief system, and that won't change unless I realize that something I believe is not true (which has happened many times in my life).

 

[Gottservant]

Well, the way you paraphrased what I had said tells me that you haven´t understood what I meant to say. Maybe your inner map doesn´t allow for it?

I wouldn't be too quick to comment on the limitations of other people's maps, when you know for a fact that you can't find one without your own.