Self-examination and revision of opinion. Does it happen and with whom?

[Dan From Smithville]

I do know that I’ve met many who have told me to question everything, and to self examine, and then when I questioned their views, they got angry and defensive. Go figure.

I have experienced that too. It was the appearance of another that may have lead me to misinterpret your response here. But it was my misinterpretation, that, in light of further reflection, I am feeling rather sheepish about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is misinterpretation and responding based on that misinterpretation a mark of projection or an error in comprehension?

Is this the sort of mistake that reflection is useful in finding?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It looks to me like sometimes people use their views for other purposes besides modeling the world around them, for example to satisfy some psychological and social needs. For example, sometimes they tell themselves that that they believe whatever they need to believe, to feel welcome in some social circle. Nothing that anyone says, nothing that happens, will budge them from that until they are attracted to some other social circle, or until they find better ways to satisfy their psychological and social needs.

Absolutely. Ingrouping is a powerful thing. The problem is a lot of people motivated by belonging to an exclusive in group, few have the self awareness to be able to recognise it consciously. Indeed, they'll often fight tooth and nail to avoid consciously recognise it.

 

[Jim]

I will have to say I disagree on that one. I would find it difficult to communicate without using the term.

I’m only thinking of forum discussions. If you think it’s important to use the word “evidence,” in forum discussions about religions, I’d like to look into that more deeply, if it’s okay with you. Could you give a few examples of when you would have something important to say in a discussion about religion, that would be hard to say without using that word?

 

[Jim]

I will have to say I disagree on that one. I would find it difficult to communicate without using the term. It is very relevant to my views and as a scientist, it is central to the support of accepting a particular scientific explanation over another.

I suppose in a completely philosophical discussion, it would not be a term used very often, but even in such a discussion, some form of evidence would exist in the form of the logic used, the validity of the premises or of any fallacies that have entered the discussion.

I’m only thinking of forum discussions about religions. It looks to me like sometimes people use the word “evidence” as a virtue signal, applying it to whatever their reasons are for believing what they do, That makes it part of the smoke, dust and mirrors that interfere with communication. It looks to me like it’s also used to stigmatize people for believing what they do, which helps perpetuate prejudices on all sides. If what you mean by “evidence” is your reasons for thinking what you do, then all you’re saying is that you have reasons for thinking what you do. Calling it “evidence” doesn’t add anything to that, other than virtue signaling. If saying that there’s no evidence for what some other people believe only means that you haven’t seen any good reasons for believing it, and you aren’t trying to stigmatize anyone, then all you need to do is say that haven’t seen any good reasons for believing it. If you’re trying to communicate anything more than that, then you would need to spell it out, and the word “evidence” would be superfluous.

 

[Jim]

I agree. But I take my statements a bit further and say "The best way of finding yourself is through studying yourself rather than finding yourself through a god or God. Religion sometimes gets in the way of that progress."

What I would be interested in hearing, however, is someone here step up and say "I am naturally inclined to find myself via religion, and here is why..."

I would love to do that, but not in this thread.

 

[Jim]

For those of us that follow science ...

Can you give an example of what you do, that you call “follow science,” that you think some people never do?

 

[Jim]

I am curious to see what people think about self-assessment and review. I do have opinions that it is less often found in groups that rely on literal versions of faith almost exclusively.

From this and another post it looks to me like your purpose in this thread revolves around your idea of some differences in character and capacities between people who rely on literal versions of faith almost exclusively, and other people. I’m wondering if you think that’s relevant somehow, to some discussions in these forums.

 

[Audie]

A number of posts and threads on this forum have gotten me to thinking about the concept of self-examination of what we believe and know. Some have pointed out that once a person is committed, they are unlikely to change very long-held views no matter what evidence they receive. Is this the case? In thinking on this subject, a number of questions have come to mind. Here are a few to ponder if you are interested.

Do people actually reflect on their own views and retract them or revise them in light of new information or perspectives?

What part does external support that is unrelated to the validity of a view impact whether that view is maintained?

Is questioning your own position a sign of weakness or strength? Can a person admit they were wrong and be seen as stronger for that?

Is there a difference to the application, amount, extent, and quality of self-examination between groups that hold views based on evidence as opposed to those based purely on faith?

In relation to this, what does having an open mind mean? How does it impact self-examination?

I dont suppose anyone is likely to do it in areas
where they are convinced that faith is a highest
virtue. See Job, or,-
But the house of Israel will be unwilling to listen to you, since they are unwilling to listen to Me. For the whole house of Israel is hard-headed and hard-hearted. 8Behold, I will make your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. 9I will make your forehead like a diamond, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or dismayed at their presence, even though they are a rebellious house.”…

 

[Audie]

Can you give an example of what you do, that you call “follow science,” that you think some people never do?

Ah, I will answer here-look at my last post,
where it is mentioned that for some, faith
despite all evidence is an essential virtue.

Nobody can succeed in perfect anything, and
objectivity can be especially challenging.

But one can at least have it in mind. Try.

Science, you know (?) is a culture of doubt.
Religion, a culture of faith. This is pretty much
opposite.
One can learn the discipline of objectivity, of
doubt, of avoiding self deception. A professional
scientist stakes his career on his ability to
demonstrate due diligence in the practice of objectivity.

You do know this?

 

[Bear Wild]

[

I agree. I think it is interesting and I too have learned a lot in the brief time I have been here that has changed my way of thinking and has changed how I view things. Mostly for the good I hope, but sometimes not it would appear.

For those of us that follow science, it is an underlying understanding that new evidence could overturn views that we have long accepted and that we should be willing to do that despite a desire not to. I think this makes us more open to accepting new ideas. But that is my opinion.

Being open to new ideas and evidence is one of the hallmarks of good science. Just think of continental drift when first proposed. The thought of continents all together at one time then floating away and crashing into each other was originally considered ridiculous but some with open minds considered the possibility and now we look back unable to imagine why it was not accepted from the start. We should remain open and consider new ideas, we may not accept them all but at least give them consideration often with some changing our own views. I agree with your opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m only thinking of forum discussions. If you think it’s important to use the word “evidence,” in forum discussions about religions, I’d like to look into that more deeply, if it’s okay with you. Could you give a few examples of when you would have something important to say in a discussion about religion, that would be hard to say without using that word?

For one, my own religious views are based on faith, as are those of most people. The evidence that I have is subjective and anyone could just say that I misinterpreted it and that is that. I cannot offer anything tangible to square that. However, since religion is not science, the standard of what can be used as evidence is different, though people should remember that. Gut feelings of intuition have more weight.

My own use of evidence is not restricted to science, but it is restricted to the physical world. People use evidence all the time to make decisions that have nothing to do with science. Is this plumber the right person for the job? Do I want to spend that much money on these shoes when those will perform just as well, but cost less. What college should I go to? Is this soap good for my skin? There are lots and lots of mundane daily activities that we decide about and use evidence to reach those decisions. Though, I suspect that a lot of us will often just pick the first thing that comes to mind as what we perceive as the best and not weigh everything in some long mental process.

There is evidence in religion, it just does not have the same weight and is often misunderstood for what it actually supports. The Bible is evidence, but it is not evidence that everything written in it happened as it is described, in my view. Some of it probably is a record like that, but not all of it. Trying to force it all to be seen as true is a fruitless effort that detracts from the messages that are contained in the stories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m only thinking of forum discussions about religions. It looks to me like sometimes people use the word “evidence” as a virtue signal, applying it to whatever their reasons are for believing what they do, That makes it part of the smoke, dust and mirrors that interfere with communication. It looks to me like it’s also used to stigmatize people for believing what they do, which helps perpetuate prejudices on all sides. If what you mean by “evidence” is your reasons for thinking what you do, then all you’re saying is that you have reasons for thinking what you do. Calling it “evidence” doesn’t add anything to that, other than virtue signaling. If saying that there’s no evidence for what some other people believe only means that you haven’t seen any good reasons for believing it, and you aren’t trying to stigmatize anyone, then all you need to do is say that haven’t seen any good reasons for believing it. If you’re trying to communicate anything more than that, then you would need to spell it out, and the word “evidence” would be superfluous.

I think that people misunderstand how evidence is used and what some evidence actually supports. Evidence also varies in quality. Differences in superficial characters may be used as evidence to claim that there is some difference in a population being examined, but genetic testing shows that the difference is trivial and hardly more significant than individual variation. So the genetic evidence has more weight than the morphological evidence in that instance.

As far as believing in something, no evidence is required. You believe for an entire lifetime without benefit of any evidence to reinforce that believing or challenging it. It is when claims based on belief are made where evidence is required. Many religious people have made claims regarding their own views of the religion they follow. Claiming that more people follow a particular religion does have evidence and can be determined using that evidence. Claiming that this is evidence that the particular religion is the "true" religion are not correct, so it is not evidence for that. I cannot say that the claim is false, only that the evidence does not support the claim.

I hope some of this helps. At least it may explain my views, if nothing else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you give an example of what you do, that you call “follow science,” that you think some people never do?

I just read a post by someone on one of these threads that explained this so well, I wish I would have kept the post to cite. I cannot remember who it was and on which thread.

In simplest terms, by following the science, I mean those people that rely on the application of science to determine the nature of the physical world around us. Conclusions arising from that are based on the logical and objective examination of the evidence and the explanations that are derived from the application of the principles of science. The scientific method being the core of those principles.

Some people might believe that an affliction running through a population is the anger of the gods on those that have offended them. They are in this instance, using evidence, but in support of their belief and not in further investigation.

A scientific investigation, using that evidence and more, determines it is a disease that is afflicting members of the population. The disease agent is isolated and characterized. The wider use of evidence following the scientific method further indicates that the majority afflicted have indicators that they are more susceptible to the affliction. No evidence is found that would lead to the conclusion that these people have offended their gods. Nothing more can be said about that claim. It may still be correct, but there is no way for anyone to know from all the available evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From this and another post it looks to me like your purpose in this thread revolves around your idea of some differences in character and capacities between people who rely on literal versions of faith almost exclusively, and other people. I’m wondering if you think that’s relevant somehow, to some discussions in these forums.

Part of that is true, but not just about religion. It could be politics. It could be conspiracy theories. It could be science. It could atheism. It could be belief in Bigfoot.

I have wondered about this for some time. I keep a list of topics that I come up with all the time as potential points or questions to make threads about. This is one of the older questions that is on that list and one I have been pondering for some time.

It is true, that much of my experience on here with this involves the debate about evolution that exists within religion. But since that is the topic that most interests me and where I spend most of my time on here, that does not make it exceptional or purposefully directed to religion alone.

I do think it is relevant. I have been involved in discussions where the submission of evidence in support of one position does not appear to be considered by the other side. In fact, in most cases, it is dismissed completely without bother of examination.

Some of this could be the result of ignorance, but I have seen simplified explanations of the evidence dismissed in the same manner, so it is not just that. This has made me wonder about people and how they hold their views. Not the specific view itself. Views using science could be held dogmatically and without understanding. You just do not see that with the people that use science in debates and discussions on this forum. There may be different levels of knowledge and understanding of some of the details, but the core appears to be well understood by those employing scientific explanations.

Years ago, I read that belief in conspiracy theories had reached a point where it was estimated that nearly 20% of voters were using conspiracy theories to make real decisions in politics. What is it that is basic to people that would employ unverified--sometimes implausible--conspiracy theories to make real world decisions? Since evidence does not seem to deter that sort of thinking, is there a way to reach them that will get them to review what they believe?

It is not that uncommon. I have believed things to be true that, when I finally reviewed them, were just stories with no basis in fact. I remember someone telling me that those flying skateboards in Back to the Future were real and the government would not allow their sale due to safety issues. I accepted that at the time. Later, I looked deeper and discovered it was all a marketing ruse to support the movie.

I am talking here about claims based on evidence that can be demonstrated. Not about belief itself or particular religious beliefs that people hold. I respect that people are free to believe as they choose, but when claims are made in defense of that belief or aspects of belief, then the door is open to provide evidence to support or refute those claims.

All I wonder is how and if people take in information, what information, or if they do anything with it more deeply than a superficial examination.

I am a religious person that gets the same information and I review it, examine it and evaluate my own position based on that evidence. I have observed that this does not seem true for everyone and this raises questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I dont suppose anyone is likely to do it in areas
where they are convinced that faith is a highest
virtue. See Job, or,-
But the house of Israel will be unwilling to listen to you, since they are unwilling to listen to Me. For the whole house of Israel is hard-headed and hard-hearted. 8Behold, I will make your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. 9I will make your forehead like a diamond, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or dismayed at their presence, even though they are a rebellious house.”…

I think that some people rely so heavily in faith about any subject that discussions with them using evidence and reason are difficult to impossible.

There entire groups of people entirely convinced in the existence of alien visitors, mental superpowers, Bigfoot, the Kennedy assassination, and many other things that have not been verified by evidence. I doubt most of them have every reviewed objections to the claims made about these either. The usual objections to dissent on these subjects are usually sweeping statements of government conspiracies to prevent us from knowing. So their answer as to the lack of evidence is another unverified conspiracy theory.

See. There is wisdom in the Bible. People can be hardheaded about the things they believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

[


Being open to new ideas and evidence is one of the hallmarks of good science. Just think of continental drift when first proposed. The thought of continents all together at one time then floating away and crashing into each other was originally considered ridiculous but some with open minds considered the possibility and now we look back unable to imagine why it was not accepted from the start. We should remain open and consider new ideas, we may not accept them all but at least give them consideration often with some changing our own views. I agree with your opinion.

I agree. I think you say it very well here, but I will add a few thoughts to reiterate yours and give one other example in science.

Being open to examine new information and ideas is very important to good science. I think that some people misunderstand what it is to have an open mind. They see it as accepting anything someone else says without question or they act like that is the case.

An open mind is one that does not dismiss something outright for no good reason, but one that examines and questions and reviews. The final determination may be that the idea is flawed or the new information is not so new or does not result in differences claimed.

I think you say it best as "consider new ideas". That seems to me to be the core of open-mindedness. The willingness to consider. This implies no outcome, just that something will be considered seriously.

In addition to continental drift, another idea that was slow to become accepted was the explanation for the channeled scablands of the Pacific Northwest. It took decades of work by and vigorous debate by Bretz and Pardee to establish that episodic, catastrophic flooding from ancient glacial Lake Missoula had carved out the scablands. Now it is common textbook science. Had they not remained open-minded, it may be that we would still not understand this important phenomenon.

 

[Jim]

I just read a post by someone on one of these threads that explained this so well, I wish I would have kept the post to cite. I cannot remember who it was and on which thread.

In simplest terms, by following the science, I mean those people that rely on the application of science to determine the nature of the physical world around us. Conclusions arising from that are based on the logical and objective examination of the evidence and the explanations that are derived from the application of the principles of science. The scientific method being the core of those principles.

Some people might believe that an affliction running through a population is the anger of the gods on those that have offended them. They are in this instance, using evidence, but in support of their belief and not in further investigation.

A scientific investigation, using that evidence and more, determines it is a disease that is afflicting members of the population. The disease agent is isolated and characterized. The wider use of evidence following the scientific method further indicates that the majority afflicted have indicators that they are more susceptible to the affliction. No evidence is found that would lead to the conclusion that these people have offended their gods. Nothing more can be said about that claim. It may still be correct, but there is no way for anyone to know from all the available evidence.

I’ll try to explain better what my question is. It isn’t about what you mean by “science,” or “evidence.” It’s about the two categories that you’re discussing. You said “those of us who follow science.” You’re dividing people into two categories: people who follow science, and people who don’t, and apparently including yourself as one of those who do. If I wanted to decide if someone is one of the people who follow science, how would I do it? What would I need to know about them, to decide if they are one of those people who follow science, or not?

 

[Jim]

I have believed things to be true that, when I finally reviewed them, were just stories with no basis in fact. I remember someone telling me that those flying skateboards in Back to the Future were real and the government would not allow their sale due to safety issues. I accepted that at the time. Later, I looked deeper and discovered it was all a marketing ruse to support the movie.

I am a religious person that gets the same information and I review it, examine it and evaluate my own position based on that evidence. I have observed that this does not seem true for everyone and this raises questions.

Is your question, why don’t people always question what other people are telling them, and do their own research, to find out if it’s true or not? You don’t always do that yourself, so you could start by looking at your own reasons. When someone told you that the flying skateboards in Back to the Future were real, why didn’t you question it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is your question, why don’t people always question what other people are telling them, and do their own research, to find out if it’s true or not? You don’t always do that yourself, so you could start by looking at your own reasons. When someone told you that the flying skateboards in Back to the Future were real, why didn’t you question it?

That was a point in making this thread. I do it too. I am not claiming to be an authority on the subject or a leading practitioner of it. I included that story as an example of my own flaws even though it is a trivial example. I have discovered that my understanding of certain aspects of history have been contaminated by popular culture at times too. I did eventually examine the flying skateboard issue, but at the time, I think I wanted it to be true.

I am interested in what others have experienced and the thoughts that they have. I am not claiming to be without sin in the matter. When I was younger, I had a discussion with my folks about communism and how it was bad. They asked me what I knew about it and that was very little at the time. Then they asked how I knew it was bad when I did not know what it was? They had me there. Then they gave me a brief understanding of communism and some history to read. Their main point coming from that conversation was not about communism, but understanding the things you criticize or oppose. If you oppose or are critical of something, you should know something about it. At least enough to form reasonable and knowledgeable opposition.

I suppose my interest is not so much about religion as it is about issues of belief associated with tangible information like that found in science, politics, economics and nature. Where it relates to religion are the claims made based on religious belief that are contrary to data based on observation.

Of personal interest to me is the debate between creation and evolution. I have seen many assertions raised against evolution by people that obviously no little of science, let alone the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it. Claims against it based on belief have nothing tangible to offer to falsify a theory about the physical world. Addressing those assertions is not an attack on a person's belief system, but the claims that person makes out of belief and not from some evidence or understanding This would apply equally to areas outside of religion. A person can continue to be a conservative even if 90% of the tweets the president makes are established to be false on the evidence. A supporter can assert he is an honest guy, but if they had an open mind and truly evaluated the evidence, would they honestly come to that conclusion? In both cases, I wonder why people come to argue as they do, despite the evidence. Accepting that he is not very honest does nothing to alter their position as a political conservative. It may say other things, but it does not say that.

I do not know if that clarifies it for you. I see this topic as evolving, but I am not making claims about my own abilities. It is from my own actions, the observation of others and reading, that my questions arise. Having challenged my own acceptance of some things, I wonder why people cannot do that for larger issues that they have taken the time and passion to object to. Is it the volume and complexity of the subject matter? Is it the time it would take to learn even the basics? Is it a reliance on a particular mindset that takes in and evaluates information on an emotional basis rather than an analytical basis? Is it some combination of those? Is it how personal an issue is for a person? Is it something I have not even considered?