> My sense is that the appeal or lack thereof of a > particular belief comes first, and evaluation > second; and that the evaluation is designed to > reinforce or reject the belief on the basis of > whether it does or does not have appeal to the > individual. > > When we reject a long-held belief, it's not so > much because we have evaluated it objectively > and found it wanting, as it is because something > about the belief has ceased to have the appeal > it once held for us. In such a case we're likely > to choose evaluation criteria stringent enough > to give us a rational basis for rejecting the > belief, but in fact the rejection has already > taken place. > > And vice-versa, of course.
This is really interesting. It is one of our cognitive weak spots. Evaluating something objectively seems like more of an ideal goal than what goes on in our lives. To give a personal example, my POV shift on belief in God happened when I went from assuming its reality to asking the question, "Why do I believe?" I had reasons, but I had not really examined them in the direction of objectivity. My belief was a forgone conclusion and then I found reasons to support it. The shift of my POV which asked more honestly what my reasons were came when I was able to even contemplate that I might be wrong. It isn't always easy to get to a position on strong personal beliefs where you are really able to actually make it falsifiable. Once I was able to face the possibility emotionally that I might be wrong, I was able to examine my belief structure and make some decisions about whether or not I wanted to continue the belief. Even shifting from assumptions to asking why I believe something with the critical ability to accept giving up the belief if it didn't meet what I accept as good thinking skills is a huge step in my relationship with my beliefs. I think that once I was able to face that my perspective on MMY might not be serving me, it became easier to question my other beliefs. It is like a muscle that needed exercising, the ability to accept being totally wrong. After a few times I realized that it wasn't so bad after all, my identity wasn't attached to a belief. But that took a little work because I love my beliefs like everybody else. I think you are on to something important about how we build our personal approach to epistemology. I have to face that I might be wrong about my perspective on MMY's teaching for example. But confidence in my opinion is something that I earned by being true to my own criteria for beliefs. I know what it would take for me to re-evaluate my position. It would blow my mind if someone stepped up and reversed my opinion. But by now I know that this experience is really exhilarating. Finding out you are wrong about something is beautiful, not to be feared. Of course this is an idealized position, I'm sure I fall short in my actual daily life. Excellent point! I am going to give this more thought. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > Me: I think a perfectly rational atheist is as much a myth as a > > person who just believes everything. We are all a mix of mental > > abilities and this is necessary to live in the world. None of > > us just believe anything presented to us, we use the criteria > > that we are comfortable with and has served us well to choose. > > While this is true, and an important point, I > think it's also the case that folks choose the > criteria they use to evaluate a belief according > to how comfortable they are with the belief--i.e., > more stringent criteria for beliefs that make > them uncomfortable, less stringent for those that > they find appealing. > > My sense is that the appeal or lack thereof of a > particular belief comes first, and evaluation > second; and that the evaluation is designed to > reinforce or reject the belief on the basis of > whether it does or does not have appeal to the > individual. > > When we reject a long-held belief, it's not so > much because we have evaluated it objectively > and found it wanting, as it is because something > about the belief has ceased to have the appeal > it once held for us. In such a case we're likely > to choose evaluation criteria stringent enough > to give us a rational basis for rejecting the > belief, but in fact the rejection has already > taken place. > > And vice-versa, of course. >
