Critically Questioning the Reasonableness of Beliefs

[leibowde84]

So, God is a live option because of a gap of our knowledge?

Ciao

- viole

More or less, yes. He's a live option for me personally for reasons I've stated before. And I do believe that it is definitely possible that there is existence beyond this reality.

 

[Erebus]

Many times I see people on RF share their beliefs, but when met with criticism, scrutiny, or honest inquiry, they get defensive. As we learn more and more about the cosmos, it is inevitable that some of our deeply held beliefs about the nature of reality will be challenged or even dismissed entirely as silly.

Now, obviously people are free to believe whatever they want. They are also free to refuse to provide explanations or the reasoning behind said beliefs. That being said, if you willingly state your belief on a discussion/debate forum like RF, you should be willing and able to defend/explain those beliefs with a reasoned argument. If it is based on mere subjective experience that is unverifiable, just say that. If it is based on comfort or mental well-being, say that. But, is it OK to refuse to explain, saying "you can believe whatever you want, and I don't have to convince you"? To me, it is disrespectful. Obvious in everyday life, that is a perfectly fine answer, but to willingly participate in a debate forum but refuse to actually defend your position rationally seems to be ridiculous.

For me, I am not here to learn about what others believe. I can pick up a book or read about different religions on my own. On RF, I am most interested in WHY people believe the things they do. Do they scrutinize their own beliefs? If not, why not? Etc.

What are your thoughts?

Speaking only for myself, sometimes explaining what I believe and why just isn't worth it. I've done both. Many times. It gets pretty exhausting.

To begin with, my particular form of theism doesn't seem to be all that common and largely goes against traditional monotheistic views on what a deity is. This means that it's difficult for me to provide concise answers, as those answers are often misconstrued. Even if the person asking the question has entirely honest intentions, I typically end up repeating the basics. Not only is this tedious, it also doesn't actually do much to challenge or test my beliefs. Now I tend to somewhat obsessively analyse what I believe and why on a daily basis, so it's not often that somebody else comes up with an interesting problem that I hadn't considered already. It has happened, but by this point I tend to know which posters are likely to provide me with a suitable challenge.

There are new people joining the forum every day. Many of them are excited to have discovered "the truth" and eager to test out the brand new arguments they've learned. Trouble is, as novel as those arguments might be to them, I've been there and done that. I've seen the same points and counterpoints rehashed over and over on the forum. It's great for a new poster who's looking to test their mettle, but relatively few of these arguments are actually relevant to me anymore.

To make matters worse, not all posters here have honest intentions. There's a small handful of people I simply won't talk to at all. These are people who've proved to me that what they really want is a fight. They aren't interested in learning or even challenging me, they just want somebody to berate. This type of poster doesn't usually last too long, but a few hang on. I've been bitten enough times to be cautious about who I open up to and how much I tell them.

Now I'll readily confess that on occasion I've snapped at people who didn't deserve it. When I realize I've done this, I apologize to them. I also accept that there are certain things that immediately get my back up, even if offense wasn't intended. The moment I feel that somebody is accusing me of stupidity or naivety, my claws come out. Interpreting text on the internet is a funny thing and I've probably taken the wrong meaning from a few people.

Some of this might come across as arrogant. Maybe it is. It's also honest though.

 

[Demonslayer]

Speaking only for myself, sometimes explaining what I believe and why just isn't worth it. I've done both. Many times. It gets pretty exhausting.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the OP was getting at this: No problem if you don't feel like explaining what you believe, but if you DO raise your beliefs, don't get angry when people ask about it or challenge it.

People can have whatever beliefs they want, as far fetched and absurd as they may be. The point is, either keep them to yourself or...if you decide to have a discussion about them...be prepared to answer questions or criticism without getting upset that the questions and criticism are being raised.

 

[leibowde84]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the OP was getting at this: No problem if you don't feel like explaining what you believe, but if you DO raise your beliefs, don't get angry when people ask about it or challenge it.

People can have whatever beliefs they want, as far fetched and absurd as they may be. The point is, either keep them to yourself or...if you decide to have a discussion about them...be prepared to answer questions or criticism without getting upset that the questions and criticism are being raised.

You nailed it!!

 

[leibowde84]

Speaking only for myself, sometimes explaining what I believe and why just isn't worth it. I've done both. Many times. It gets pretty exhausting.

To begin with, my particular form of theism doesn't seem to be all that common and largely goes against traditional monotheistic views on what a deity is. This means that it's difficult for me to provide concise answers, as those answers are often misconstrued. Even if the person asking the question has entirely honest intentions, I typically end up repeating the basics. Not only is this tedious, it also doesn't actually do much to challenge or test my beliefs. Now I tend to somewhat obsessively analyse what I believe and why on a daily basis, so it's not often that somebody else comes up with an interesting problem that I hadn't considered already. It has happened, but by this point I tend to know which posters are likely to provide me with a suitable challenge.

There are new people joining the forum every day. Many of them are excited to have discovered "the truth" and eager to test out the brand new arguments they've learned. Trouble is, as novel as those arguments might be to them, I've been there and done that. I've seen the same points and counterpoints rehashed over and over on the forum. It's great for a new poster who's looking to test their mettle, but relatively few of these arguments are actually relevant to me anymore.

To make matters worse, not all posters here have honest intentions. There's a small handful of people I simply won't talk to at all. These are people who've proved to me that what they really want is a fight. They aren't interested in learning or even challenging me, they just want somebody to berate. This type of poster doesn't usually last too long, but a few hang on. I've been bitten enough times to be cautious about who I open up to and how much I tell them.

Now I'll readily confess that on occasion I've snapped at people who didn't deserve it. When I realize I've done this, I apologize to them. I also accept that there are certain things that immediately get my back up, even if offense wasn't intended. The moment I feel that somebody is accusing me of stupidity or naivety, my claws come out. Interpreting text on the internet is a funny thing and I've probably taken the wrong meaning from a few people.

Some of this might come across as arrogant. Maybe it is. It's also honest though.

Debater Slayer got it right below.

 

[Erebus]

Debater Slayer got it right below.

Right, I got the wrong end of the stick then.

*Edit*

I think a fair chunk of what I posted still applies to be honest. The person I explain something about my beliefs to might not be the person who starts to question them. The person who starts to question them can fall into one of the categories I described above.

 

[leibowde84]

Right, I got the wrong end of the stick then.

I appreciate your input. I have no issue with those who rather keep their personal beliefs personal, though.

 

[Erebus]

I appreciate your input. I have no issue with those who rather keep their personal beliefs personal, though.

Thank you. I've added an edit to the above post though.

Perhaps what this is telling me is I should make more use of the private messaging and private forum functions

 

[Demonslayer]

You nailed it!!

Must be Hammertime!

***dances around in giant pants***

 

[RedDragon94]

But, is it OK to refuse to explain, saying "you can believe whatever you want, and I don't have to convince you"?

I think that people can rely on reason to guide their own beliefs. If someone wishes to engage you in debate that is a completely different matter. In this instance it is a good thing to know what you believe so as to defend yourself from the intellectual onslaught of your opponent. I wouldn't impose my beliefs on another person just because they don't think like me, however. I would just approach it as a polite conversation when someone tries to impose their beliefs on me, but I would do it with rationale. At the same time when you come here to RF (or youtube for that matter ) you basically are walking into the hunger games of theology and philosophy, the real world. If you don't know what to believe or not believe I think people should stick with it (like this site isn't already addictive) until they can learn how to effectively compose an argument.

 

[That one dude...]

I'm also interested in why people hold beliefs. I don't think they should have inherent validity because of their sacredness in the eyes of believers. It's like saying "just because" when asked why you do something. When has that ever been an acceptable justification for anything? It's benign and silly at best and dangerous at worst.

 

[Reflex]

For me, I am not here to learn about what others believe. I can pick up a book or read about different religions on my own. On RF, I am most interested in WHY people believe the things they do. Do they scrutinize their own beliefs? If not, why not? Etc.

I've linked to it before somewhere else, but I think this video explains the why pretty well. Although beliefs do play a large role in religion, it's less about belief and the certainty of beliefs than being goal and value orientated.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, just certain beliefs. There are people who hold contradicting beliefs, and they are both valid as we haven't figured out the true explanation as of yet. The more we learn, it seems inevitable that those explanations will be discovered and one party's beliefs or both will be proven incorrect.

This is vague and arbitrary. Are you presenting an argument?

 

[leibowde84]

This is vague and arbitrary. Are you presenting an argument?

Just pointing out the fact that contradicting beliefs held by many cannot all be true. At some point, we will figure out some to be true, and those that contradict them false.

 

[4consideration]

Many times I see people on RF share their beliefs, but when met with criticism, scrutiny, or honest inquiry, they get defensive. As we learn more and more about the cosmos, it is inevitable that some of our deeply held beliefs about the nature of reality will be challenged or even dismissed entirely as silly.

Now, obviously people are free to believe whatever they want. They are also free to refuse to provide explanations or the reasoning behind said beliefs. That being said, if you willingly state your belief on a discussion/debate forum like RF, you should be willing and able to defend/explain those beliefs with a reasoned argument. If it is based on mere subjective experience that is unverifiable, just say that. If it is based on comfort or mental well-being, say that. But, is it OK to refuse to explain, saying "you can believe whatever you want, and I don't have to convince you"? To me, it is disrespectful. Obvious in everyday life, that is a perfectly fine answer, but to willingly participate in a debate forum but refuse to actually defend your position rationally seems to be ridiculous.

For me, I am not here to learn about what others believe. I can pick up a book or read about different religions on my own. On RF, I am most interested in WHY people believe the things they do. Do they scrutinize their own beliefs? If not, why not? Etc.

What are your thoughts?

Where and how criticism and scrutiny is applied may have a lot to do with it.

In this OP, you lump Discussion and Debate together, (I highlighted for emphasis) as though the different locations carry the same intent for debate. This could be a cause of what you are seeing as a problem.

It is sometimes frustrating to see a conversation on a Discussion location, and to wish it had been placed in a Debate area. I often feel that way, especially about DIR threads. But...I don't get to insist that a person back up what they say in a Discussion thread. That's just how it is here, and I'm ok with that.

If a person is asserting a belief in a debate, I think the person owes an explanation, or to somehow back it up. If the conversation about the belief is on topic in a debate thread and the person refuses to back up what they say, I don't think they come across very effectively, and probably have little problem simply dismissing what they said as not being convincing to me.

It may be good and valid to have interest in WHY people believe things they believe. I think, though, sometimes in discussions when people are not interested in debating -- and are choosing to discuss, instead -- insistence that one is somehow owed an explanation about the origin of another person's beliefs, can come across as overly aggressive, rude, or bullying behavior.

To me, in debates, if a person applies their belief to me and my life, I'll probably pursue that belief to the point of revealing something about its application, or its absurdity. Or, I might push it in defense of someone else. I don't think it's any of my business to try to insist that someone exam their beliefs, unless they want to.

I (hope I) only push it when I see someone using their beliefs against someone. (I probably mess up at times.)