Changing Beliefs Through Logic: Examining Controversial Issues

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
How many people can honestly admit to changing their mind, as an adult, about a strong belief and due to a logical argument?

I'm intrigued by how this is phrased. Is it that you find a lot of people to dishonestly claim they have changed a belief?

For example: a belief in God or an afterlife, ghosts, or UFOs?

My beliefs on all unprovable phenomena seem to change often depending on the solidity of the last argument I've heard on the subject. I gave up on visits from extra terrestrials when I found out how far away the nearest possible habitable planet could be. Just about a month ago I finally gave up all hope in Nessie due to a good show which really went into detail about the mirages and wave effects on Loch Ness that could mislead anyone predisposed to see a lake monster. Alot of eyewitness reports about something is a persuasive thing. I have never been to Tierra del Fuego, for instance, but believe it exists based on eyewitness reports. I would be considered nuts to be skeptical about its existence. That being the case one can often be persuaded to consider a lot of things seriously based on a large number of eyewitness reports. In the end, whether or not a thing exists, is completely independent of how many people assert it exists. If you can't check something for yourself the best you can do is say you're not sure and be open minded.

 

[Bernardo]

FZ+ & Another god, I enjoy your posts generally but feel the need to answer you on this topic.

First I need to say I have no desire for this thread to boil down to an argument that goes on for pages and pages stuck on one point, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is... but I will this once respond, and this once only - I hope that's fair with you.

compared with any other ancient documents, the New Testament stands. For example, we have hundreds of copies earlier than AD. 500. The next most reliable ancient text is the Iliad, for which there are only 50 copies that date from 500 years or less than the time it was written. The manuscriopts we have are, in addition to being old, are also reinforcing and consistent. All later discoveries of manuscripts, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, have confirmed rather than refuted previously exsiting documents. There is simply no other ancient text in as good of shape.

If Christianity is a myth invented by later generations, who invented it? Even if it was Christ's disciples or a later generation there is no possible motive for its creation. Until the Edict of Milan in AD 313, Christians were subject to persecution, often tortured, killed or at least hated. No one invents an elaborate practical joke in order to be crucified.

You can also examine the content of the NT to determine the time of its writing. There really is no reason to put any of the NT books later than 70 A.D. The main reason is that there is no clear reference in any of them to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which occurred on September 26th of that year. This cataclysmic event brought to an end the sacrificial worship that was the center of the Jewish religion and it should have merited a mention in the NT books if they were written afterwards. In particular, one would have expected to find a reference to the event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for it would have greatly strengthened the author’s argument that the Temple worship was now obsolete.

Also the date of Luke’s Gospel is closely connected with that of Acts, its companion volume, if Acts is early, then Luke will be earlier. A date before 62 A.D. is likely because Luke does not mention the outcome of the trial of Paul, something that would have been recorded had he known the outcome. Given the pains Luke did to record details of Paul's life, this omission is only explained in that he didn’t know the outcome because it hadn’t happened yet.

So ther you have it. My filter in full view.

 

[Semper000]

Belief/s can be based on inferences rooted in logic.

For example, perhaps I was skeptical about the existence of psychic abilities (or energy). Let's suppose I test out a random handful of psychic readers (who remain unaware of the testing process). I present myself as a patron to each, with utmost stoicism, maintaining a singular body position (that means no knodding too) plus I withold verbal responses.

If I get statistically significant accurate responses, I can logically say psychic energy may LIKELY be at work. And yes, there may be subtle movements/gestures that one or more psychics use to "read" me. But since I controlled for these in my experiment, there is likely at least an equally strong chance I have what it takes to logically change my belief system in favor of such alleged phenomenon.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is beside your point, but if you feel that your gestures and responses might tip a "psychic" off then maintaining a singular posture and withholding responses is the equivalent of shouting in body language.

 

[Bernardo]

My original comment simply pointed out that I think that for something to be called a belief, it can't contradict logic. To believe something beyond the realms of what is logical (like Elvis is alive) is to be deluded not believing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Bernardo
My original comment simply pointed out that I think that for something to be called a belief, it can't contradict logic. To believe something beyond the realms of what is logical (like Elvis is alive) is to be deluded not believing.

I just looked up the word belief and I don't see where it it only applies to things based in logic. Delusion, in fact, is roughly defined as a false belief. A belief can be logical or not, and still be a belief.

 

[Bernardo]

Your right. It is possibe to believe anything.

I'm not just talking about an individual belief - but an entire world view - to offer any benefit or peace to life it must be logical. (Though I still hold that even our individual beliefs need to stand before logic or they must be reconsidered.)

There's a quote from Discipleship of the Mind, pg 50, by James W. Sire that gets at what I'm trying to say,

"Our world view, then, should be both consistent and coherent. That is, not only should it not contain any contradictions, but it should be composed of presuppositions which fit well togehter, presuppositions which, because they are as correct as we can get them, give us a coherent picture of the way things really are."

In otherwords to be an Athiest and believe in reincarnation defies logic. Our beliefs must line up with each other or they become insufficient.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that the more our beliefs line up with reality, the more benefit we'll derive from them. I was just trying to point out that the parameters you offered within which the word belief should fall, were not in line with the current definition of that word:
"...I think that for something to be called a belief, it can't contradict logic."

Your point may have been clearer had you said something like: "I think that our beliefs should not contradict logic."

 

[Bernardo]

You're right, I see the point you are making.

But if that's all there's to it - is there anything further to discuss? Beliefs don't need logic.

World views and their grasp on logic interest me quite a bit - thus my little tangent these last few posts.

Where does this go now?

Does logic need belief?