The underlying force behind our beliefs

[vkut79]

I have recently come across, both as a result of conversations and some individual thinking, the idea that people's beliefs are staked not so much in reason but in their value of self-affirmation and self-defense. That is to say, people generally tend to believe those things that provide them with an attractive meaning for life and a greater sense of self-security. This is more of a psychological subject rather than a philosophical one, as I see now. Does anyone know about any psychologists that have analyzed the nature of belief from this sort of vantage point?





vkut79 added to this post, 12 minutes and 47 seconds later...

It is very interesting to look at arguments from this point of view. If you consider exactly what the values of self-affirmation and self-defense consist of(better terms could be used i'm sure), strict logical reason is only one of different factors. Therefore in an argument, if Person A has greater logical evidence for his particular belief than Person B has for his particular belief, and both realize this, Person B will not in fact adopt Person A's belief if the overall value of self-affirmation and self-security of that belief is not favorable to that of his belief. This is tough to articulate abstractly, especially since I'm thinking it up as I go, so i'll try an example.

In an argument of Darwenian evolution vs. intelligent (classical) design, the believer of intelligent design may not have the same amount of logical reason/evidence for his belief than the believer of evolution, but he would probably not adopt the other's view because it lacks life-meaning and self-security, so he would naturally be inclined to hold on to his view despite logical evidence.

What this reveals, I think, is the bias we all have in assuming that logical reason is the driving force behind our beliefs. In this era of science and secularism, this bias certainly is evident. From a psychological point of view, there might be much more to the nature of belief. I haven't learned very much about psychology at all, but I will be taking a psychology class pretty soon, so I'm pretty excited for that.

[The Many]

Obviously this kind of thing happens all the time, it goes with emotive reasoning as well and it is a curse. Strangely enough, INTJs seem to be the most adaptable (or at least some of the most adaptable) when it comes to losing debates over ideas. For the sake of self-image (which must be good or you'll essentially end up being depressed), many seem to cling to fallacies which are not only potentially but even actively destructive when used, for instance, politically.

[Lights]

I've noticed that every great political and social belief is based upon moral and ethical beliefs. Typically these morals/ethics come down to values of either tradition, equality, or freedom. Whatever underlying force that aligns somebody to one of these particular values is probably a mixture of biological influences, nurturing, and environment.

I think temperament would naturally have some effect. More rational types are naturally aligned toward valuing individual freedom, idealistic types toward equality, authoritative types toward tradition, and artistic types toward universal freedom.

Nurturing such as parenting styles would influence perceptions of moral and ethical boundaries. Authoritative parents would foster traditional values, Permissive Parents would foster freedom values, and Authoritative parents would foster equality values.

Finally, environmental influences, such as culture, religion, and poltics would shape an individual's fundamental values through peer groups and education. Those who didn't accept the values of the group would face being ostracized or punished. Different regions have different cultural, relgious, and political beliefs, so where an individual lives could greatly influence the values they develop.

Ultimately, I think most of this is unconscious and creates a powerful underlying drive that most people don't even question, let alone even attempt to understand.

[blueback]

Therefore in an argument, if Person A has greater logical evidence for his particular belief than Person B has for his particular belief, and both realize this, Person B will not in fact adopt Person A's belief if the overall value of self-affirmation and self-security of that belief is not favorable to that of his belief.


True, but not for the reason you seem to think. Logic has nothing to do with faith. Faith is when you are convinced something is true without, or inspite of, evidence. Logic is a system of relating observable things to each other in an attempt to predict something which is, for the moment, unobservable. Faith results in dogma, logic results in theories.

Therefore, it doesn't matter how much, or how good, your logic is. If you have to make a "leap of faith" at any point then the conclusion is dogma and is not open to debate. If you reach a conclusion through logic, and nothing else, then the conclusion is a tentative prediction which is either confirmed or updated in the future.

So, if one person has a belief, no amount of logic will change it. Logic can't jump as far as faith.



the believer of intelligent design [...] would naturally be inclined to hold on to his view despite logical evidence.


Well yeah. He reached his conclusion without logical evidence, so why would he ever change it because of logic.


What this reveals, I think, is the bias we all have in assuming that logical reason is the driving force behind our beliefs.


Correct, although I've never heard anyone say that before, it is false. Logic doesn't dictate belief. People that say their beliefs are founded on sound logic are either misusing the english language or are lying. They might be saying they "believe dogma" when what they mean to say is that they "think a theory is accurate." Or, they might be saying that they reached their belief after sound logical analysis, when what they mean to say is that they whipped up some evidence to support the belief they already had.

[Hypomanic]

I have recently come across, both as a result of conversations and some individual thinking, the idea that people's beliefs are staked not so much in reason but in their value of self-affirmation and self-defense.

This type of thinking is unhealthy.

Yes, many psychological and behavioral studies have been based on thought processes, reasoning, et cetera. A little digging through scholarly articles should get you what you want.

[SeekingHim80]

Therefore, it doesn't matter how much, or how good, your logic is. If you have to make a "leap of faith" at any point then the conclusion is dogma and is not open to debate. If you reach a conclusion through logic, and nothing else, then the conclusion is a tentative prediction which is either confirmed or updated in the future.

So, if one person has a belief, no amount of logic will change it. Logic can't jump as far as faith.


Go, blueback! Although, I think you are all right to a certain extent.

Faith takes the place (becomes) evidence. All you need to believe in something is a little bit of faith. that is what faith is, "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". Faith can exist without logic. However, logic cannot exist without faith. what makes you believe that the facts you are presented with are true? Hmm, we have to have a certain amount of faith in the source, or at least the facts themselves. Then we have to have a certain amount of faith in ourselves in order to believe that we interpreted the facts correctly. In the end, faith is the core "stubstance" of our ability to believe in anything.

Logic has to validate or confirm the things we believe. It is only when we question our beliefs that logic can play its part.

I can tell you that I am going to shoot you, and you can logically reason out what to do. However, if you do not believe (have faith) that I am serious, then you probably will not react in a way as to protect yourself.

The question is, "how much faith are you willing to place in one system of beliefs or in a single belief?" I think that it is our environment, genetics, and other influences that determine How much we believe what we do. the interesting part comes when you choose to "reason" out why you believe in certain things.

[blueback]

Thanks for the support, but I disagree with you.

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive. If they were a venn diagram the circles would not overlap. Check out the definitions sometime.

What you call faith in logic is a misuse of the word "faith." What you mean to say is that you THINK logic is sound, so you base other thoughts on it. No theory is 100% right, but many are 99.999% right. That is more than enough to base other theories on. And, as the law of probability states, the more probabilities you have in parallel with each other (the more seperate lines of evidence support the same conclusion) the more reliable the result.

It is not faith to act on something with 99% certanity, it is a calculated risk. It is a chance taken with full understanding that you might be wrong. Faith is an uncalculated risk. It is a chance taken without any understanding that you might be wrong.

[SeekingHim80]

Thanks for the support, but I disagree with you.

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive. If they were a venn diagram the circles would not overlap. Check out the definitions sometime.

What you call faith in logic is a misuse of the word "faith." What you mean to say is that you THINK logic is sound, so you base other thoughts on it. No theory is 100% right, but many are 99.999% right. That is more than enough to base other theories on. And, as the law of probability states, the more probabilities you have in parallel with each other (the more seperate lines of evidence support the same conclusion) the more reliable the result.

It is not faith to act on something with 99% certanity, it is a calculated risk. It is a chance taken with full understanding that you might be wrong. Faith is an uncalculated risk. It is a chance taken without any understanding that you might be wrong.



If faith and logic are mutually exclusive, then what validates your logic? It's sort of like the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" every natural thing has a beginning. this is a mathematical fact. As you said before, faith is a leap. Therefore, since faith requires no beginning, we must conclude that "true faith" is supernatural. On the other hand, logic, in it's "definition", mandates that there be some natural progression of facts. This means that logic must have some starting point on which to build following truths. Yes, according to probability, the more concurrent opinions (beliefs or "faiths), the better the chances are that the progression is in deed true. Nevertheless, we must first have faith in something, whether it be our selves, the source of our facts, or the facts themselves in order to assume that the assumption is accurate. Otherwise, we would not have any starting point on which to build a logical conclusion.

Also, if you have faith in something, then you are assuming certainty. Why else would you believe something?

Again, I say that I am going to shoot you. If you have faith in any one thing, you will act accordingly. If you believe that I am going to actually shoot, then you will take preventative measures. You will defend youself. If you do not believe, then you might just stand there. Either way, you make a decision based on your "faith". It is very possible that you will depend on logic to decide exactly how to act, but even then, your faith has to trigger your logical process. What would be the point in you taking any action if you did not believe that I would actually shoot?

[blueback]

It's sort of like the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"


That's easy, the egg.
Just think about it. If we are talking about the moment in history when a pre-chicken laid a mutated version of itself which would grow into a chicken then the chicken-egg game first and the chicken came out of it later.


Nevertheless, we must first have faith in something, whether it be our selves, the source of our facts, or the facts themselves in order to assume that the assumption is accurate. Otherwise, we would not have any starting point on which to build a logical conclusion.


No. It sounds like you're saying that because you can see, you have faith that you can see. Because you can think, you have faith that you can think. Because you can hear, you have faith that you can hear.

That is shoving faith in sideways by way of nihilism.


Again, I say that I am going to shoot you. If you have faith in any one thing, you will act accordingly. If you believe that I am going to actually shoot, then you will take preventative measures. You will defend youself. If you do not believe, then you might just stand there. Either way, you make a decision based on your "faith". It is very possible that you will depend on logic to decide exactly how to act, but even then, your faith has to trigger your logical process. What would be the point in you taking any action if you did not believe that I would actually shoot?

You are confusing the word "faith" with the word "think." The definition of the word faith states that it is confidence WITHOUT logic. So, in your example, there is quite a bit of logical evidence to support the conclusion that you are going to shoot me, which means it's not faith. If you told me that God was going to shoot me, then I would have to take it on faith.

[SeekingHim80]

That's easy, the egg.
Just think about it. If we are talking about the moment in history when a pre-chicken laid a mutated version of itself which would grow into a chicken then the chicken-egg game first and the chicken came out of it later.





Actually, it was the chicken that came first. What determined the genetic code for the chicken? In order for there to be an egg, there has to be a set of genetic codes which determine what the egg will become. If the egg came first, then what firtilized it? If the natural process of producing an egg, firtilizing the egg, and the egg hatching into a live being has been altered over time, then the alternate conclusion makes sense.

What I was saying is that I can believe that I can see, and that is fine. I do not need logic to tell me that I can see. However, if I truly do not believe that I can see, then no amount of evidence can convince me otherwise. I have to believe that I have the ability to see before I can reach the logical conclusion that I can see. The evidence that I can see is meaningless to me unless I believe something about the evidence gathered. If I have enough faith in the person presenting the evidence, I may assume that the conclusion is logical without ever analysing the data myself. It's not that I can see because I believe that I can. It's that I know that I can see because I believe all of the evidence proving that I can see. My certainty is based on my belief in the obveous. I can observe the evidence; I believe what I observe; I conclude something based on how much I believe what I observe.

Take a court trial for example. Those hearing the evidence have to have a certain amount of faith before they can honestly say that they do not have a shadow of a doubt. No matter how logical the arguement is, the belief has to exist before the logic is valid.

I am not confusing the definitions of the words. faith and logic are different entities. I understand that.

Say that I perform a study on two different metals. I want to determine which metal is a better fit for a specific function. In order for me to come to a logical conclusion, I have to gather and analyze various pieces of data. After ten repetitions of the same tests, I have a pretty substantial data set. According to the data, the second metal has a better chance of fitting my needs based on the criteria for a metal to be a good fit for the specified function. Honestly, what good is this? All I have is a logical conclusion based on a set of data.

Say that it is up to you to make a decision as to which metal to use. All you have is the data I obtained. How are you going to reach your decision. You have to make some assumptions. First of all, you have to have some amount of faith that I gave you accurate information. If I have given you information before that has proven to be accurate, then you can make an educated guess that I will give you accurate information again. This is not a logical conclusion though. As you mentioned before, there can be a certain amount of statistical probability. Regardless, you will not accept the statistics if I have done something to make you not trust me.

What I am saying is that even a logical progression has to be founded on some amount of belief in the components of the progression.

[blueback]

However, if I truly do not believe that I can see, then no amount of evidence can convince me otherwise. I have to believe that I have the ability to see before I can reach the logical conclusion that I can see.


No, you don't. You are shoving faith into a logical construction that doesn't need it.

To even conceive that you have faith, you first have to be concious. It doesn't take any faith to be aware of your own existence. Once you are aware that you exist, you can being to test your senses for other inputs. Before you are able to see, how could you possibly imagine it? You can't have faith in something you haven't thought of yet. The only reason you have a chance to "have faith" in your sight is that you begin to see. Using your senses doesn't require any faith because the evidence comes first. If you have evidence, you don't have faith.


The evidence that I can see is meaningless to me unless I believe something about the evidence gathered. If I have enough faith in the person presenting the evidence, I may assume that the conclusion is logical without ever analysing the data myself.


How are you going to be aware of someone else presenting evidence of your ability to see without being able to see?

You don't have to believe you can see. You just see. Since the evidence comes first, it's not faith in sight, it's just something you know is happening. Faith in sight won't create it for you or bring it back after it is gone. You are free to feel like you have faith in your sight, because it has no effect on whether or not you see.


It's not that I can see because I believe that I can. It's that I know that I can see because I believe all of the evidence proving that I can see.


No, you can't "believe" evidence. You need to start using the words according to their definitions. Words were invented so that you could express your thoughts and understand the thoughts of others. If you pervert the way they are used through willful ignorance you don't deserve to express your opinion.


My certainty is based on my belief in the obveous. I can observe the evidence; I believe what I observe; I conclude something based on how much I believe what I observe.


There is no such thing as "belief in the obvious." You don't believe what you observe you think that it is reliable. I've had some interesting experiences with high-strength antihistamines where they make me start to see faces in my peripheral vision. The first time it happened I was suprised, but the second time I was ready for it so I knew when they were hitting me because I noticed when the change happend. One minute everything looked normal, the next I started to see faces in tree bark and grass in my peripheral vision.

It didn't make me question my faith in my sight, it just became another piece of evidence. When a fighter pilot pulls upwards of 4G's their vision begins to shrink until, at 9G's it is like they are looking through a toilet paper tube. That doesn't make them lose faith in their sight, it is just an event that they have to deal with. When their sight returns to normal it doesn't reafirm their faith, it is just what happens when certain conditions prevail. Those conditions are predictable.


Take a court trial for example. Those hearing the evidence have to have a certain amount of faith before they can honestly say that they do not have a shadow of a doubt. No matter how logical the arguement is, the belief has to exist before the logic is valid.


Logic founded on faith doesn't result in a logical conclusion. If faith is even 1% of a logical conclusion then the conclusion is faith.

Logic is founded first in the fact that everyone is aware of their own existence. Then, it is simply a matter of observing reality, drawing conclusions, and testing them. No faith is necessary. It doesn't take faith in life to know that as long as you eat food and drink water you will stay alive.


I am not confusing the definitions of the words. faith and logic are different entities. I understand that.


Then you are confusing the use of the words.


According to the data, the second metal has a better chance of fitting my needs based on the criteria for a metal to be a good fit for the specified function. Honestly, what good is this? All I have is a logical conclusion based on a set of data.


What good is it? Seriously? Did you just ask that?
You just described the scientific process. If you have to ask "what good" is the scientific process then we don't have anything to talk about.


First of all, you have to have some amount of faith that I gave you accurate information.


No, I don't. All I have to do is make an educated guess. Taking a calculated risk is not the same as faith. Faith is not calculated, because there is nothing to calcluate.


If I have given you information before that has proven to be accurate, then you can make an educated guess that I will give you accurate information again. This is not a logical conclusion though.


Yes, it is. This is where you are using the words incorrectly.
I started with evidenced, I analyzed it, I drew a conclusion. That is logical.


What I am saying is that even a logical progression has to be founded on some amount of belief in the components of the progression.


No, it doesn't. Logic doesn't require faith. Faith doesn't required logic. They are mutually exclusive.

I'm getting kind of tired of trying to figure out different ways to say the same thing. Maybe if you came back with some evidence to support your assertion that logic is based on faith. You know, maybe a great philosopher said it once, or something. Just go find a source who can maybe say it better then you have.

[rocksteady]

I just think of faith as the thing that came before logic, like logic - beta version. (many people have had trouble upgrading to logic 1.0, I'm currently testing version 1.5, so many new features!) They are related, but one is far more useful and practical.

Faith is based in logic, it's just terribly bad logic.

faith logic in a nutshell:
Fact: I'm gonna die eventually > Logical action: try and stop it? > Fact: these guys say I live forever in heaven > Logical Action: I'm gonna listen to these guys

it's horribly guided self-serving logic with misplaced trust in religious figures in the end.

[blueback]

If it doesn't fit the definition of logic then don't call it logic. Even calling it bad logic implies that the person is following the rules they just aren't doing it very well.

Basing a conclusion on a lack of evidence is not logic, it is actually the opposite of logic. When someone tells you that you could go to heaven, even if a million people tell you that, but they have no proof, accepting what they say on faith doesn't make you logical.

Maybe there is a heaven, maybe God's there waiting, maybe there are certain things you have to think in order to get there. . .but there isn't a single shred, sliver, or crumb of proof regarding any of those things. They are supernatural so evidence is impossible. That makes accepting them an act of faith. Don't dress it up with pseudo-logic to make it sound more rational.