Do You Favor Belief Over Knowledge and Curiosity?

[stvdv]

15 jul 2018 stvdv 017 81

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?
Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

Thanks, video is very clear. I recognize the picture given. Atheist unwilling to accept "what is above the mind" and theist unwilling to accept "what is below the mind". Both similar IMO.

When children are young and feel hurt, mother gives a sweet. If a religion is taught using fear for "hell" and "heaven" as a sweet in young age, then it's hard to "unlearn"
That is simple psychology. Below age 7 it's difficult to change certain habits. Most religious people teach their kids at very young age [age 3 I see them in church already]

So for me it is understandable how/why this happens.

Even people who are brought up with atheism as "religion" at young age [no religion or anti religion], will find it difficult to be open to the other side. I see on RF also.

Seen from the highest wisdom both atheist and theist are equally dumb. Until we are enlightened we are all just groping in the dark. And it is a known fact that there are not so many enlightened beings. So there is not so much difference IMO between an atheist and a theist (unless enlightened). Both can equally fool themselves that they "own the truth", thereby blocking to actually "experience the truth". That is why Lao said "They who know don't speak" [I admit, i still don't experience this highest truth]. Many people (me also) speak a lot on RF. So if Lao is right "many are still ignorant". But sometimes reading between the lines might give you the "aha moment". So RF can be helpful. as is this video

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, most of the fundamentalists that I've known believe because they have had a powerful, personal experience, one that to them trumps 'merely' material or human explanations, those rooted in objective evidence or scientific theory.

To them, "truth" is not subject science...it is rooted in personal experience.

You are using a very different definition of the word 'fundamentalist' than I am. I'm defining fundamentalist as a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion. A person who does not waver on this despite new information. This kind of person typically does not base their beliefs on experience, but on what they've read or what they've been told to believe.

The people you are describing may be a subset of this group, but all of the people you're describing with which I'm acquainted do not belong to the fundamentalist group I'm talking about here.

I don't know that fundamentalists are blindly clinging to beliefs because of fear as you assert (or "Comfort? ... Pride? Poor fashion sense?" as you said in the OP); I certainly can assume that something like this underlies their beliefs, but I'm not exactly sure how you can be so certain...nor that how you are going about asking about this is going to get anything except silence from the group you apparently are trying to ask...

Perhaps, but in my experience, such people as I describe above like to talk about and debate their beliefs.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think that you don't need to favor one over the other, to be honest. You can desire or thirst for knowledge, and still also favor belief/faith.

I like the sentiment, but what if they are in conflict?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see them as equally important. My belief in my religion does not stifle my knowledge and curiosity of things.

Do you believe this may have to do with eastern religions' and philosophies' willingness to adapt to new information more easily than their western counterparts? If so, why?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I really dislike the fellow who plays Mr. Deity ...

Interesting. Would you be willing to share why?

 

[Terese]

Do you believe this may have to do with eastern religions' and philosophies' willingness to adapt to new information more easily than their western counterparts? If so, why?

No, i just think stifling knowledge and curiosity over belief isn't a wise thing to do.

 

[Audie]

Well, most of the fundamentalists that I've known believe because they have had a powerful, personal experience, one that to them trumps 'merely' material or human explanations, those rooted in objective evidence or scientific theory.

To them, "truth" is not subject science...it is rooted in personal experience.

I don't know that fundamentalists are blindly clinging to beliefs because of fear as you assert (or "Comfort? ... Pride? Poor fashion sense?" as you said in the OP); I certainly can assume that something like this underlies their beliefs, but I'm not exactly sure how you can be so certain...nor that how you are going about asking about this is going to get anything except silence from the group you apparently are trying to ask...

Powerful experience to make them believe flood?

 

[Audie]

I'm relatively familiar with most scientific thought and find little that rules one, my faith, or the other, science, out. Even the scientific age of the earth. The Hebrew word for day changes meaning in their scripture. In Genesis 1 it means something like a passage of time. Day could be a normal earthen day or an eon or billions of years. The large sea creatures were killed off in the flood. Which may have happened when a meteor hit the earth or when the strait linked the ocean with the Mediterranean.

The large sea creatures were killed in the flood..
or when med was linked to atlantic?

You know the med was repeatdly cut off and reflooded,
likewise the black sea?

In the event the largest sea creatures are very much
still with us, despite industrial whaling.

 

[YmirGF]

Interesting. Would you be willing to share why?

It is a rare reaction, but it is a real and somewhat inexplicable personal reaction. An unfathomable dislike. I should be laughing my arse off listening to him, as he is echoing many of my own opinions, but all I hear is the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. If I were being generous I'd simply say he is obnoxious.

 

[Thief]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

God made Man to BE curious
even when death is a pending consequence

 

[Earthling]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

The arrogance astounds me. You'd think I would be used to it by now, but every once in a while it hits me out of the blue. Wow!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You are using a very different definition of the word 'fundamentalist' than I am. I'm defining fundamentalist as a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion. A person who does not waver on this despite new information. This kind of person typically does not base their beliefs on experience, but on what they've read or what they've been told to believe.

The people you are describing may be a subset of this group, but all of the people you're describing with which I'm acquainted do not belong to the fundamentalist group I'm talking about here.



Perhaps, but in my experience, such people as I describe above like to talk about and debate their beliefs.

So, since my experiences with fundamentalists appears to differ from yours (I've seen some of what you describe, but in my experience it accounts for only about half of fundamentalists--and only if you ignore what they actually say about their experiences and reasons for believing as they do), then it seems to me that you are putting up a straw man argument...and if fundamentalists are only those "who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion. A person who does not waver on this despite new information," then I think you're also employing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Powerful experience to make them believe flood?

Yes. The 'born again' experience is both psychologically and sociologically a powerful force; the emotions involved can overwhelm reason and disconfirming evidence to the contrary.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, since my experiences with fundamentalists appears to differ from yours (I've seen some of what you describe, but in my experience it accounts for only about half of fundamentalists--and only if you ignore what they actually say about their experiences and reasons for believing as they do), then it seems to me that you are putting up a straw man argument...and if fundamentalists are only those "who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion. A person who does not waver on this despite new information," then I think you're also employing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Nope. I'm employing a definition of a 'fundamentalist' by utilizing the dictionary definition of fundamentalism:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

I find it ironic that you are suggesting that I'm making a straw man (or even a no true Scotsman) fallacy here. Please show me an accepted definition or 'fundamentalist' or 'fundamentalism' that discusses fundamentalism being about experiences and then I'll consider your suggestions of fallacy.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Nope. I'm employing a definition of a 'fundamentalist' by utilizing the dictionary definition of fundamentalism:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

I find it ironic that you are suggesting that I'm making a straw man (or even a no true Scotsman) fallacy here. Please show me an accepted definition or 'fundamentalist' or 'fundamentalism' that discusses fundamentalism being about experiences and then I'll consider your suggestions of fallacy.

The definition does not provide an explanation of how or why any individual holds fundamentalist beliefs, only states that they do.

You are asserting that a cause, that their fundamentalism is because of fear, or because they don't think for themselves but blindly follow what someone else has told them, or that they are incapable of rationality or reason, or because they have bad fashion sense, or whatever.

My experience with fundamentalists (which is not limited to Christians) does not back up your asserted explanations: at least half of these I've encountered have had powerful, personal experiences that have led them to be fundamentalist, and most fundamentalists I've encountered have thought carefully about it. The trend I've noted is that they thought about it most BEFORE their conversion experience rather than after, but I've encountered a significant fraction who have thought about it after as well.

Now then, my sample is based in chance and convenience in my own experience, and is in no way scientific. But I am not aware of any research that establishes causation for fundamentalism. I have seen a number of studies of correlations to fundamentalism, but not causation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The definition does not provide an explanation of how or why any individual holds fundamentalist beliefs, only states that they do.

The definition clearly states that their beliefs are based on literal interpretation of the Bible. It says nothing of their beliefs being based on experience.

You are asserting that a cause, that their fundamentalism is because of fear, or because they don't think for themselves but blindly follow what someone else has told them, or that they are incapable of rationality or reason, or because they have bad fashion sense, or whatever.

I asserted nothing. I asked a question.

And it's been my experience that those who are perceived to have bad fashion sense are very good at thinking for themselves.

My experience with fundamentalists (which is not limited to Christians) does not back up your asserted explanations: at least half of these I've encountered have had powerful, personal experiences that have led them to be fundamentalist, and most fundamentalists I've encountered have thought carefully about it. The trend I've noted is that they thought about it most BEFORE their conversion experience rather than after, but I've encountered a significant fraction who have thought about it after as well.

Now then, my sample is based in chance and convenience in my own experience, and is in no way scientific. But I am not aware of any research that establishes causation for fundamentalism. I have seen a number of studies of correlations to fundamentalism, but not causation.

Again with the claiming that I made assertions. Please quote the post where I made these assertions or at least show me the post number.

And again, you are ignoring the accepted definition of fundamentalism.

"Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Until you can provide me an accepted definition that states that fundamentalism is a result of experience, as you have argued, I see no reason to continue this discourse.

 

[1213]

....
For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

I just happen to like truth and want to defend it.

Why should I reject belief in the Bible and replace it with unintelligent evolution theory that is not proven fact? Evolution theory is nothing more than modern mother earth cult and I think it is not correct nor wise.

 

[Ponder This]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

Are you referring to the rejection of evidence that has been presented or the refusal to allow evidence to be presented?

People may refuse to listen to evidence presented from sources they find questionable.
People may reject a proposition only supported by evidence.
It is natural to argue for the things you believe.

If you want to present a convincing argument, you may need more than evidence. You may need logos, pathos, ethos, and/or kairos.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The definition clearly states that their beliefs are based on literal interpretation of the Bible. It says nothing of their beliefs being based on experience.



I asserted nothing. I asked a question.

And it's been my experience that those who are perceived to have bad fashion sense are very good at thinking for themselves.



Again with the claiming that I made assertions. Please quote the post where I made these assertions or at least show me the post number.

And again, you are ignoring the accepted definition of fundamentalism.

"Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Until you can provide me an accepted definition that states that fundamentalism is a result of experience, as you have argued, I see no reason to continue this discourse.

Neither the dictionary nor wikipedia definition provides any explanation of WHY anyone is a fundamentalist, simply that the term is used to describe people and their beliefs. And the question you are asking, of fundamentalists, is WHY they are fundamentalists and refuse to accept the evidence and reason that you fundamentally accept.

In asking your question, you asserted several possible causes for their fundamentalism, to wit:

what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

The very format of your question asserted possible explanations that you would be willing to accept...but clearly, you cannot accept another possible explanation, which I have offered.

So, you have never encountered a fundamentalist who talks about their "born again" experience? Most every fundamentalist I've ever talked to about their beliefs talk about their experience, not their rational evidence and reasoning.

What you have presented is WHAT they are, and your question is WHY they are that. Because of what they have related to me about their fundamentalism, it seems central to me in explaining WHY they are fundamentalist.

 

[Audie]

I just happen to like truth and want to defend it.

Why should I reject belief in the Bible and replace it with unintelligent evolution theory that is not proven fact? Evolution theory is nothing more than modern mother earth cult and I think it is not correct nor wise.

You would get more respect talking straight like so-

"I decided on unevidenced faith what the truth is. I must maintain
this rigid posture no matter what. My notion of truth is so
weak that to shore it up, I will abandon integrity as neceesary,
stating such falsehoods as suit me about matters of
which I am profoundly ignorant."

 

[Deidre]

I like the sentiment, but what if they are in conflict?

I think if we're honest, we all have conflicting thoughts, on a daily basis. And maybe it comes down to giving certain views priority over the others. For example, I believe in God, and some of my ideas might conflict with secular views, so I try to weigh both and see the common ground. If there is any. There's usually some common ground, but I won't let my secular views overshadow my spiritual ones, if that makes sense. It can be hard, sometimes.