Different beliefs. What sets one above, better, more acceptable/believable than the other

[Isolde Schulz]

Whether your belief is....
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Etc

It all goes back and starts from one person. What sets your belief apart from the others? Was it just a personal choice, understanding, etc. or something else.

It's both nature and nurture, along with genetics and where you happen to have been born.

 

[viole]

So you presume, but what about all those who were born in Ancient Greece yet abandoned their worship of false pagan gods, such as Zeus or Hermès, to trust in Jesus Christ?

You mean in 600 B.C.?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Augustus]

So hold on. The alternative is what? Just believe whatever makes you feel good, no matter what evidence does or doesn't support it? The fact that we can be wrong is not an excuse to just abandon factual analysis as a measure of reasonableness in terms of beliefs.

In the early 20th C, do you really contend that it was better to be an advocate of white supremacist eugenics because it was considered to be based on 'scientific fact' at that time, than it was to be an opponent of racialist eugenics due to principles regarding the sanctity of life grounded in 'stupid, nonsensical' religious beliefs?

What about Marxist arguments against the "Quaker-Papist babble" of the sanctity of human life in order to justify mass murder in the name of 'progress'? Factually there is no sanctity of human life, it is just based in religious myth, should we thus be praising their ability to be so rational on this issue?

(I also never suggested that there is no value in factual analysis, just that it isn't particularly useful as a metric for identifying a belief system as better:

a) because belief systems are never really underpinned by facts, but principles taken as being axiomatically true and justified via some kind of mythos/narrative
b) because belief systems purportedly based on 'facts' do not necessarily promote positive values and ones base on myths negative ones)

 

[Augustus]

What's criticized as "stupid" and "not true" about religion by the typical atheist is that they assert things that are stupid and not true, like the belief that we should pray to heal our illnesses instead of seeking medical care, or that the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that I'm going to hell to be tortured for eternity because I've dared to have sex with a dude and don't feel bad about it.

The problem with these is that they are harmful, not that they are 'not factual'.

As a fun aside, until maybe around 100 years ago, praying instead of going to the doctor would have increased your life expectancy as going to the doc was one of the worst things you could do.

What's wrong with being an animal?

Nothing, my critique was of human exceptionalism (and 'fact based' ideologies like secular humanism that rely on it)

Will read. It seems to me that the toothpaste is largely out of the tube when it comes to global interconnectivity and interdependence.

Not really, COVID should have been a warning about overly interdependent systems, and anyway, anything the result of political decision can be reversed by political decision.

Federalised localism is perfectly possible in the modern world.

I think the evidence indicates very clearly that when tribalism decreases, peace between tribes increases. We are better off in a society with freedom of religion and expression than one without. If you disagree, which country without those freedoms would you like to move to?

That doesn't seem to relate to my argument, I don't equate decentralised political units with 'tribalism'

With centralisation, sometimes you are just making the tribes bigger and more dangeraous.

I would take decentralised Switzerland over China, wouldn't you?

20th century Europe is an example of groups of people NOT cooperating peacefully and thinking their tribe is better than another. So that's a reason to increase cooperation, not decrease it.

No it was a consequence of nationalism and the increasing size of the European political unit. It was a consequence of centralisation and consolidation of power into larger political units.

"Political paralysis" is not an inherently bad thing, depending in the context. Our government is at times "paralyzed" because we are not a dictatorship or one-party system, but rather a representative democracy with multiple layers of checks and balances. Again, that's a demonstrably good thing, and preferable if we care about things like human rights and democracy (if you don't, yikes).

You don't think Americans would get along better in a decentralised system where people from Portland had a greater say in what happens in Portland and people in Oklahoma City got a better say in what happens there rather than the 'winner takes all' system now where each group fears being run by those from far away places they see literally as being evil (mostly based on hysterical ideologically driven narratives)?

You're treating all abstract ideas as though they're equally desirable or helpful or realistic. "Abstraction" is itself...abstract , and requires us to dial down to what abstraction we're talking about. It's functionally impossible to use our brains without employing some level of abstraction.

Yes, but the larger the scale the more we need to use abstract concepts, and the more we use abstract concepts the less discussions are about the 'real world' and the more they are about ideologically driven narratives drawn on partial/mistruths.

Then you get different groups who live in completely different political realities that are irreconcilable as they are based on different 'realities' (see American politics where people who share 95% of their values are convinced the other is literally evil as they support the other party).

One of the best ways to reduce prejudice is to make people interact as it punctures the abstract gets 'mugged by reality'.

The smaller the political unit, the more things become about people and their lives rather than abstract, ideological argumentation.

The fact is that while what we call "human rights" today in the West had some premodern precursors, their expression as we understand them today is demonstrably a product of the secularism of the modern era, enshrined in things like modern constitutions.

If you are interested in an alternative view that place them as a product of Catholic Theology and Christian Democracy around the time of WW2 see:

Christian Human Rights: An Introduction

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09615768.2017.1299349

And my point was that the reasonable position is the one that aligns with known fact, rather than one that is comforting to you but contradicts known fact.

I'll take the comforting fiction of human rights and human dignity, over Trotsky's more factually correct "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”

Won't you?

Do you think it's reasonable for anyone in the West in 2021 to believe the world is flat?

Of course not, but it's not a belief system which is the thing I'm talking about.

 

[Left Coast]

In the early 20th C, do you really contend that it was better to be an advocate of white supremacist eugenics because it was considered to be based on 'scientific fact' at that time, than it was to be an opponent of racialist eugenics due to principles regarding the sanctity of life grounded in 'stupid, nonsensical' religious beliefs?

First off, I question your gloss that the entire scientific community and evidence worldwide in the early 20th century was in one accord that white people are the supreme race. I think you and I both know that's a sloppy, inaccurate description of what actually happened.

Second off, you are once again conflating being factual (or as factual as possible) with value systems. That is an apples and oranges comparison that is irrelevant to what I originally said. I'm well aware that value systems are subjective in terms of what outcomes or morals people prefer. People could agree on all the facts involved in a moral dilemma or controversy, for example, and come to two different conclusions as to what to do in the situation based on their ethical principles. If you are an antisocial sociopath, you may not care at all if your course of action would result in deaths of other innocent people, for example, even if you knew for a fact that's what would happen.

However, that is not an excuse to just believe anything you feel like simply because it makes you feel good. It still remains the case that the most reasonable position at a given time is the one best supported by the available evidence.

It is notable that you have persistently not answered my actual questions to you in this dialogue.

What about Marxist arguments against the "Quaker-Papist babble" of the sanctity of human life in order to justify mass murder in the name of 'progress'? Factually there is no sanctity of human life, it is just based in religious myth, should we thus be praising their ability to be so rational on this issue?

The so-called 'sanctity of life' as expressed by the Catholic Church is a double-edged sword. While it of course can be used to oppose genocide, it can also be used to criminalize abortion, contraception, and forms of sexuality that don't result in conception, like gay sex. Meanwhile, plenty of non-Catholic civilizations have ethically opposed genocide without the baggage of Catholic dogma. In fact, virtually every civilization on Earth, whether they've been secular, monotheistic, polytheistic, etc., has placed prohibitions on wanton killing of innocents. You concede that, yes?

Why is Stalinism the only form of secularism y'all ever seem to remember?

(I also never suggested that there is no value in factual analysis, just that it isn't particularly useful as a metric for identifying a belief system as better:

a) because belief systems are never really underpinned by facts, but principles taken as being axiomatically true and justified via some kind of mythos/narrative
b) because belief systems purportedly based on 'facts' do not necessarily promote positive values and ones base on myths negative ones)

There's a conflation of beliefs and values again here. My original comment in this thread was about when it is reasonable to believe something is true. That is a separate question, strictly speaking, from what ethical system one endorses. I agree that broader "belief systems" usually involve a combination of claims about what is true and values that are subjective.

My point was that a reasonable belief, as a rule, is one that conforms with the known facts on the ground. An unreasonable belief would be one that contradicts the known facts on the ground. If I claim you're a unicorn, do you think that's a reasonable belief? I would contend its not, because we have no evidence that unicorns exist, lots of evidence that they're made up creatures of fictional stories, and you don't meet any of the criteria, so far as we know, for being a unicorn. Agreed? Or do you think my claim that you're a unicorn is a reasonable one?

 

[Left Coast]

The problem with these is that they are harmful, not that they are 'not factual'.

The reason they are harmful is because they are not factual. If the Earth actually was 6,000 years old, it would not be harmful at all to say so, or to teach kids so.

As a fun aside, until maybe around 100 years ago, praying instead of going to the doctor would have increased your life expectancy as going to the doc was one of the worst things you could do.

Which is why my statement was present tense.

Nothing, my critique was of human exceptionalism (and 'fact based' ideologies like secular humanism that rely on it)

Here's the most updated version of the Humanist Manifesto:

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association

I don't think secular humanism actually is what you think it is.

Not really, COVID should have been a warning about overly interdependent systems,

How? Interdependent systems have made it possible to treat and vaccinate millions of people against COVID.

and anyway, anything the result of political decision can be reversed by political decision.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That's true regardless of what political system you advocate.

Federalised localism is perfectly possible in the modern world.

Which is fine as far as it goes, but those federalized localities are going to eventually need to cooperate or compete for resources.

That doesn't seem to relate to my argument, I don't equate decentralised political units with 'tribalism'

Then we're talking past each other about two different things.

With centralisation, sometimes you are just making the tribes bigger and more dangeraous.

That's true. Which is why we should emphasize peaceful cooperation at all levels, regardless of the size of the government or nation in question.

I would take decentralised Switzerland over China, wouldn't you?

Of course. Again, I think we're talking past each other.

No it was a consequence of nationalism

What is nationalism but tribalism at the national level?

and the increasing size of the European political unit. It was a consequence of centralisation and consolidation of power into larger political units.

As with your other glosses, I think this analysis is rather simplistic.

You don't think Americans would get along better in a decentralised system where people from Portland had a greater say in what happens in Portland and people in Oklahoma City got a better say in what happens there rather than the 'winner takes all' system now where each group fears being run by those from far away places they see literally as being evil (mostly based on hysterical ideologically driven narratives)?

I think most people are blithely unaware of how globalized and interconnected the world is and how many aspects of their lives take that completely for granted. When a person in Portland goes to Walmart, the vast majority of the products they purchase are not from Portland. If we actually instituted a system where cities were completely autonomous and didn't depend at all on people outside their borders, it would entail a significant curtailing of lifestyle and choice for many.

Yes, but the larger the scale the more we need to use abstract concepts, and the more we use abstract concepts the less discussions are about the 'real world' and the more they are about ideologically driven narratives drawn on partial/mistruths.

I don't know if that's actually true.

One of the best ways to reduce prejudice is to make people interact as it punctures the abstract gets 'mugged by reality'.

That is exactly what I'm advocating. You seem to be suggesting the opposite, that different groups interact and interdepend on each other less.

I'll take the comforting fiction of human rights and human dignity, over Trotsky's more factually correct "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”

Human rights aren't a "fiction" (any more than any legal construct with demonstrable real-world consequences is a "fiction") and Trotsky's is not more "factually correct." Again, you're conflating facts and values.

 

[1213]

How can you know that the Bible God is the only one who has anything to say to us or the only God that cares what people do if you have never read any scriptures of any other religions?...

If the other gods would care, they would have taken care that I know what they want to say. But, interestingly most of the other gods have a nothing to say. Perhaps that is why people like them.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the other gods would care, they would have taken care that I know what they want to say. But, interestingly most of the other gods have a nothing to say. Perhaps that is why people like them.

How do you know that they have not taken care that you know what they want to say of you have never listened to them?
How do you know that most of the other gods have a nothing to say unless you listened to them?
Do you believe that the Bible God is the only God that has anything worthwhile to say?
Do you believe that the one true God has only spoken through the Bible?

 

[Augustus]

First off, I question your gloss that the entire scientific community and evidence worldwide in the early 20th century was in one accord that white people are the supreme race. I think you and I both know that's a sloppy, inaccurate description of what actually happened.

You are misinterpreting what I said.

I gave 2 examples:

1. A belief grounded in what was a very common 'scientific' position adhered to by Rationalists (this does not require 'the entire scientific community ' to support it, most scientific positions are disputed to some degree)
2. What you acknowledged as religious nonsense

Your claim was that 'more factually accurate' is better.

Was the 'scientific' belief better because it had a better case to be considered 'factually accurate', or was the stupid religious belief better because it opposed racialist eugenics on false pretences.

Who was better a or b?

a) Racialist eugenicist
b) Religious dupe who was on 'the right side of history'

Second off, you are once again conflating being factual (or as factual as possible) with value systems. That is an apples and oranges comparison that is irrelevant to what I originally said. I'm well aware that value systems are subjective in terms of what outcomes or morals people prefer. People could agree on all the facts involved in a moral dilemma or controversy, for example, and come to two different conclusions as to what to do in the situation based on their ethical principles. If you are an antisocial sociopath, you may not care at all if your course of action would result in deaths of other innocent people, for example, even if you knew for a fact that's what would happen.

I'm not 'conflating' anything. You replied to my point, not the other way round

As I've pointed out in every single post, I am talking about ideologies/belief systems/value systems, not isolated facts.

My point: it is silly to criticise religious belief systems as not being 'factually accurate' when their replacements are equally made up.

It is notable that you have persistently not answered my actual questions to you in this dialogue.

Well I do keep trying to tell you that you are arguing against something other than that which I said

Why is Stalinism the only form of secularism y'all ever seem to remember?

Trotsky was a Stalinist? Do you know how and why Trotsky was assassinated?

Who is y'all though? Atheists who dislike the conceit of secular humanism? We are a pretty small group in these environs.

The so-called 'sanctity of life' as expressed by the Catholic Church is a double-edged sword. While it of course can be used to oppose genocide, it can also be used to criminalize abortion, contraception, and forms of sexuality that don't result in conception, like gay sex. Meanwhile, plenty of non-Catholic civilizations have ethically opposed genocide without the baggage of Catholic dogma. In fact, virtually every civilization on Earth, whether they've been secular, monotheistic, polytheistic, etc., has placed prohibitions on wanton killing of innocents. You concede that, yes?

Define 'innocents' otherwise it is a meaningless question

Again you are avoiding the question though.

If we are being 'factually accurate', there is no sanctity of human life any more than there is sanctity of the lives of ants, monkeys, rats and pigs. Human exceptionalism is a religious principle.

Factually speaking, Trotsky was right: there is no sanctity of life. It's pure sentimental mythology.

You insist more factual = better. So Trotsky's belief was better than those irrational religious folk with their stupid god beliefs, yes?

There's a conflation of beliefs and values again here. My original comment in this thread was about when it is reasonable to believe something is true. That is a separate question, strictly speaking, from what ethical system one endorses. I agree that broader "belief systems" usually involve a combination of claims about what is true and values that are subjective.

My point was that a reasonable belief, as a rule, is one that conforms with the known facts on the ground. An unreasonable belief would be one that contradicts the known facts on the ground. If I claim you're a unicorn, do you think that's a reasonable belief? I would contend its not, because we have no evidence that unicorns exist, lots of evidence that they're made up creatures of fictional stories, and you don't meet any of the criteria, so far as we know, for being a unicorn. Agreed? Or do you think my claim that you're a unicorn is a reasonable one?

I think it is unreasonable to believe in unicorns as an extant animal species.

Why should 'factualness' matter more than societal benefit in terms of belief systems?

 

[Augustus]

What is nationalism but tribalism at the national level?

That's the point.

There is either "one big happy family" at the top, or there are ever larger and more powerful tribes, held together by ever more abstract principles. This makes them ever more fragile.

If you think there is one big happy family at the top, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell you.

As with your other glosses, I think this analysis is rather simplistic.

I'd say yours is naive and idealistic, but we can disagree on that.

I think most people are blithely unaware of how globalized and interconnected the world is and how many aspects of their lives take that completely for granted. When a person in Portland goes to Walmart, the vast majority of the products they purchase are not from Portland. If we actually instituted a system where cities were completely autonomous and didn't depend at all on people outside their borders, it would entail a significant curtailing of lifestyle and choice for many.

Localism ≠ isolationism

Economic cooperation between politically autonomous units is generally a good thing, although there should be some degree of friction against it to support the degree of redundancy necessary to avoid fragility.

The current system is over-optimised and thus highly fragile.

That's true. Which is why we should emphasize peaceful cooperation at all levels, regardless of the size of the government or nation in question.

You are much more likely to get peaceful cooperation, when you don't fear being politically dominated by the 'other'.

You are more likely to get people worried about political domination by the 'other' the larger the centralised political unit you create.

 

[Left Coast]

You are misinterpreting what I said.

I gave 2 examples:

1. A belief grounded in what was a very common 'scientific' position adhered to by Rationalists (this does not require 'the entire scientific community ' to support it, most scientific positions are disputed to some degree)

That is was common does not indicate it was accurate.

2. What you acknowledged as religious nonsense

Your claim was that 'more factually accurate' is better.

Was the 'scientific' belief better because it had a better case to be considered 'factually accurate', or was the stupid religious belief better because it opposed racialist eugenics on false pretences.

Who was better a or b?

You're playing fast and loose with terminology here. The dichotomy is a false one. The question I originally commented upon was about reasonableness of beliefs. Not about value systems. White supremacy is unreasonable as a belief because it is false: the white race is not in fact genetically superior to all others (or if it is, we don't have the evidence to conclude that's the case).

To disagree with me, you'd have to argue that it is reasonable to hold a belief without any evidence, or even in the face of directly contradictory evidence. Is that your position? If so, I'd love to see you actually defend that.

a) Racialist eugenicist
b) Religious dupe who was on 'the right side of history'

c) none of the above

I'm not 'conflating' anything. You replied to my point, not the other way round

I'll hereby ignore everything you say that isn't actually relevant to my point.

As I've pointed out in every single post, I am talking about ideologies/belief systems/value systems, not isolated facts.

Then we're not having the same conversation, as I already said.

Trotsky was a Stalinist? Do you know how and why Trotsky was assassinated?

Apologies, I should've said communist.

But please tell me you're not criticizing me for being factually inaccurate? That would be an irony of ironies in the context of this conversation.

Define 'innocents' otherwise it is a meaningless question

Define "mass murder" otherwise your criticism of Marxism is a meaningless objection.

Once you do that you'll know what "innocents" means.

Again you are avoiding the question though.

If we are being 'factually accurate', there is no sanctity of human life any more than there is sanctity of the lives of ants, monkeys, rats and pigs. Human exceptionalism is a religious principle.

Factually speaking, Trotsky was right: there is no sanctity of life. It's pure sentimental mythology.

You insist more factual = better. So Trotsky's belief was better than those irrational religious folk with their stupid god beliefs, yes?

Again you are conflating beliefs and values. Values aren't statements of fact. They are apples and oranges.

Do you think people can't ethically oppose murder without a religion?

I think it is unreasonable to believe in unicorns as an extant animal species.

Why?

Why should 'factualness' matter more than societal benefit in terms of belief systems?

You're acting as though they are completely independent qualities. If you care about helping society, you need to have an accurate understanding of the world to know if you are actually benefitting society. This is why I kept asking you the question you avoided: how do you know something actually benefits society? Sans facts, sans an accurate understanding of the world, you don't.

 

[alypius]

Yes, and that is why the ones listed are all equivalent.

What reasons are there to support the position that they are all equivalent?

 

[InChrist]

You mean in 600 B.C.?

Ciao

- viole

No, not that ancient, but the worship of Greek mythological gods continued into the time of Christ. Many turned from their idol worship to Jesus Christ.

 

[Left Coast]

That's the point.

There is either "one big happy family" at the top, or there are ever larger and more powerful tribes, held together by ever more abstract principles. This makes them ever more fragile.

If you think there is one big happy family at the top, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell you.



I'd say yours is naive and idealistic, but we can disagree on that.



Localism ≠ isolationism

Economic cooperation between politically autonomous units is generally a good thing, although there should be some degree of friction against it to support the degree of redundancy necessary to avoid fragility.

The current system is over-optimised and thus highly fragile.



You are much more likely to get peaceful cooperation, when you don't fear being politically dominated by the 'other'.

You are more likely to get people worried about political domination by the 'other' the larger the centralised political unit you create.

This part of the conversation is fascinating, but I'd like to move it to a different thread to keep this one on topic. You cool with that?

 

[Augustus]

This part of the conversation is fascinating, but I'd like to move it to a different thread to keep this one on topic. You cool with that?

That's fine

 

[viole]

No, not that ancient, but the worship of Greek mythological gods continued into the time of Christ. Many turned from their idol worship to Jesus Christ.

Yes, but if you were born in 600 BC, you would have believed in Zeus. And now, according to your theology, you would be in hell.
Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What reasons are there to support the position that they are all equivalent?

They all have the same evidence. No rational reason to believe one, and not the other.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Augustus]

You're playing fast and loose with terminology here. The dichotomy is a false one. The question I originally commented upon was about reasonableness of beliefs. Not about value systems. White supremacy is unreasonable as a belief because it is false: the white race is not in fact genetically superior to all others (or if it is, we don't have the evidence to conclude that's the case).

To disagree with me, you'd have to argue that it is reasonable to hold a belief without any evidence, or even in the face of directly contradictory evidence. Is that your position? If so, I'd love to see you actually defend that.

As you note we are discussing completely different things, I did try to point that out earlier

As I clarified, the point you replied to was about belief systems as that what the OP was about.

"I was really focusing on the term 'better' in the context of belief systems.

I do not believe 'factual accuracy' [of the narratives underpinning the belief system] is a robust metric for deciding what belief systems are 'better' than others. A belief system that was based on being as factually accurate as possible certainly wouldn't resemble liberal humanism.

Factual accuracy matters sometimes (building a plane, is it safe to cross the road, etc.) but worldviews as a whole are not really about factual reality but making meaning via mythos in a world which has no intrinsic meaning."

In terms of being reasonable (based on reason), what you say is basically tautological.

100 years ago, and without the benefit of hindsight, it was more reasonable for an educated European Rationalist to be a racialist eugenicist or social Darwinist than a someone who opposed such beliefs based on religious mythology. They could point to widely accepted science in support of their views, and the other was relying on myth.

Most people today would agree that, of the 2, the Christian opponent held the better belief in this regard though (and it's not a 'false dichotomy', it is a comparison of 2 common positions that factually existed).

The science may have been wrong, but when a mainstream scientific belief is proved wrong, we don't consider everyone who ever held it to be irrational. It wasn't irrational to believe in geocentrism in the 15th C.

There was also nothing factually wrong with Trotsky pointing out that human life has no intrinsic value. And, accepting this, it was not unreasonable to consider it an acceptable trade of if millions die to benefit all of humanity in perpetuity. It was simple utilitarianism.

To me, that doesn't make them good beliefs though.

But please tell me you're not criticizing me for being factually inaccurate? That would be an irony of ironies in the context of this conversation.

It wouldn't be in the context my conversation

that was how the factual accuracy of the mythos is not the best metric for measuring the value of belief systems. It was not about facts never having any value

The myths that underpin the belief system don't really matter, it is the behaviours they produce and the consequences of these that matter (and yes, of course you can use facts and evidence to work this out. I didn't 'avoid' the question I just pointed out it had nothing to do with what I had actually said).

 

[InChrist]

Yes, but if you were born in 600 BC, you would have believed in Zeus. And now, according to your theology, you would be in hell.
Correct?

Ciao

- viole

No. The scriptures give examples and reveal that anyone, in whatever time period or wherever they were born or live, can seek and find the true Creator God if that is their desire. God reaches those who seek truth wherever they’re at.

 

[viole]

No. The scriptures give examples and reveal that anyone, in whatever time period or wherever they were born or live, can seek and find the true Creator God if that is their desire. God reaches those who seek truth wherever they’re at.

How?

And if that was true, what do you need missionaries for? A little help?.

ciao

- viole